netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/8] net: phy: bcm84881: move the in-band capability check where it belongs

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]

Message-ID: <20221122100106.likrl6rg3crydrh3@skbuf>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:01:06 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>,
        Camelia Groza <camelia.groza@....com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Maxim Kochetkov <fido_max@...ox.ru>,
        Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>,
        Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        Raag Jadav <raagjadav@...il.com>,
        Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>,
        Ong Boon Leong <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
        Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        Marek Behun <marek.behun@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/8] net: phy: bcm84881: move the in-band
 capability check where it belongs

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:38:43AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Also, if we get the Marvell driver implementing validate_an_inband()
> then I believe we can get rid of other parts of this patch - 88E1111 is
> the commonly used accessible PHY on gigabit SFPs, as this PHY implements
> I2C access natively. As I mentioned, Marvell PHYs can be set to no
> inband, requiring inband, or inband with bypass mode enabled. So we
> need to decide how we deal with that - especially if we're going to be
> changing the mode from 1000base-X to SGMII (which we do on some SFP
> modules so they work at 10/100/1000.)

Not clear which parts of this patch we could ged rid of, if we
implemented in-band AN reporting/configuration for the 88E1111.
Based on your previous description, it sounds like it would be just more
functionality for software rather than less.

> In that regard, I'm not entirely convinced that validate_an_inband()
> covers the functionality we need - as reading the config register on
> Marvell hardware doesn't guarantee that we're reading the right mode -
> the PHY may be in 1000base-X, and we might change it to
> SGMII-with-bypass - I'd need to go through the PHY datasheets to check
> what we actually do.
> 
> Changing what the PHY driver does would be a recipe for regressions,
> especially for drivers that do not use phylink.

I believe that currently, the "interface" passed to phy_validate_an_inband()
and phy_config_an_inband() is always also the phydev->interface.
We could strive to keep that being the case, and put a phydev_warn() in
the Marvell PHY driver if we get a query for interface != phydev->interface,
and report PHY_AN_INBAND_UNKNOWN.

It's also one of the reasons why I didn't yet want to jump right into
figuring out what should be done with PHYs that change SERDES protocols,
and when exactly we query the in-band capability for the new one. Right
now, phylink will assume that the in-band capability reported for the
first SERDES protocol will continue to be the same for all subsequent
protocols. Obviously this might not be the case.