netdev - [PATCH v3 net 4/5] amd-xgbe: fix the SFP compliance codes check for DAC cables

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 12:12:14 +0530
From:   Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>
To:     <thomas.lendacky@....com>, <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <Rajesh1.Kumar@....com>,
        Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 net 4/5] amd-xgbe: fix the SFP compliance codes check for DAC cables

The current XGBE code assumes that offset 6 of EEPROM SFP DAC (passive)
cables is NULL. However, some cables (the 5 meter and 7 meter Molex
passive cables) have non-zero data at offset 6. Fix the logic by moving
the passive cable check above the active checks, so as not to be
improperly identified as an active cable. This will fix the issue for
any passive cable that advertises 1000Base-CX in offset 6.

Fixes: abf0a1c2b26a ("amd-xgbe: Add support for SFP+ modules")
Signed-off-by: Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>
---
Changes since v1:
 - Split the changes into two patches. The next patch contains the
   Vendor specific quirk.
 - Add a vendor check for Molex cables before assigning bit rate ceiling

 drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
index 349ba0dc1fa2..8c41ac5676d6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
@@ -1151,7 +1151,10 @@ static void xgbe_phy_sfp_parse_eeprom(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata)
 	}
 
 	/* Determine the type of SFP */
-	if (sfp_base[XGBE_SFP_BASE_10GBE_CC] & XGBE_SFP_BASE_10GBE_CC_SR)
+	if (phy_data->sfp_cable == XGBE_SFP_CABLE_PASSIVE &&
+	    xgbe_phy_sfp_bit_rate(sfp_eeprom, XGBE_SFP_SPEED_10000))
+		phy_data->sfp_base = XGBE_SFP_BASE_10000_CR;
+	else if (sfp_base[XGBE_SFP_BASE_10GBE_CC] & XGBE_SFP_BASE_10GBE_CC_SR)
 		phy_data->sfp_base = XGBE_SFP_BASE_10000_SR;
 	else if (sfp_base[XGBE_SFP_BASE_10GBE_CC] & XGBE_SFP_BASE_10GBE_CC_LR)
 		phy_data->sfp_base = XGBE_SFP_BASE_10000_LR;
@@ -1167,9 +1170,6 @@ static void xgbe_phy_sfp_parse_eeprom(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata)
 		phy_data->sfp_base = XGBE_SFP_BASE_1000_CX;
 	else if (sfp_base[XGBE_SFP_BASE_1GBE_CC] & XGBE_SFP_BASE_1GBE_CC_T)
 		phy_data->sfp_base = XGBE_SFP_BASE_1000_T;
-	else if ((phy_data->sfp_cable == XGBE_SFP_CABLE_PASSIVE) &&
-		 xgbe_phy_sfp_bit_rate(sfp_eeprom, XGBE_SFP_SPEED_10000))
-		phy_data->sfp_base = XGBE_SFP_BASE_10000_CR;
 
 	switch (phy_data->sfp_base) {
 	case XGBE_SFP_BASE_1000_T:
-- 
2.25.1