netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/1] amd-xgbe: fix active cable determination

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aa6ad8c7-5df9-9569-2849-ee601b862645@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:38 +0100
From:   Thomas Kupper <thomas.kupper@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] amd-xgbe: fix active cable determination

Am 10.11.22 um 23:35 schrieb Jakub Kicinski:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 23:20:02 +0100 Thomas Kupper wrote:
>> Am 10.11.22 um 22:57 schrieb Jakub Kicinski:
>>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 22:03:32 +0100 Thomas Kupper wrote:
>>>> When determine the type of SFP, active cables were not handled.
>>>>
>>>> Add the check for active cables as an extension to the passive cable
>>>> check.
>>> Is this patch on top of net or net-next or... ? Reportedly it does not
>>> apply to net. Could you rebase, add a Fixes tag and repost CCing Tom
>>> and Raju?
>> I apologise, after reading through all the guidelines I forgot that it
>> was on top of the latest linux-kernel instead of net.
>>
>> Regarding the 'Fixes' tag: active cables don't works for at least since
>> kernel v5.15, to what commit would you suggest do I refer to?
> Which exact sub-version of 5.15 ? Looking at the history of the file
> commit 09c5f6bf11ac988743 seems like a candidate but you'd need to
> double check based on what you know, or just revert and see if that
> fixes your problem (to confirm that's the culprit).

Checking with git blame shows that in commit abf0a1c2b26ad from 
2016-11-10 the whole if, else if ... clause plus a lot more was 
introduced. And since then the handling of the active cables was 
missing. The check (for the passive cable) got moved up in the commit 
you mentioned.

I would then use 'Fixes: abf0a1c2b26ad ...', right? And sent pretty much 
the same mail as the first time, with Tom and Raju CCed? And Patchwork 
will realise that?


Thanks for your help and patience
Thomas