netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] can: etas_es58x: report the firmware version through ethtool

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: <CAMZ6RqJU5hm=HniJ59aGvHyaWboa7ZHv+9nSbzGxoY-cCfxMag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 02:12:27 +0900
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Lukas Magel <lukas.magel@...teo.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] can: etas_es58x: report the firmware version
 through ethtool

On Tue. 29 Nov. 2022 at 07:29, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 01:22:10 +0900 Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> > Implement ethtool_ops::get_drvinfo() in order to report the firmware
> > version.
> >
> > Firmware version 0.0.0 has a special meaning and just means that we
> > could not parse the product information string. In such case, do
> > nothing (i.e. leave the .fw_version string empty).
>
> devlink_compat_running_version() does not work?

I was not aware of this one. Thank you for pointing this out.
If I correctly understand, devlink_compat_running_version() is
supposed to allow ethtool to retrieve the firmware version from
devlink, right?

Currently it does not work. I guess it is because I am not using
SET_NETDEV_DEVLINK_PORT()? I initially thought that this was optional.
I will continue to investigate and see if it is possible to completely
remove the .get_drvinfo() callback.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol