netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/4] phy: aquantia: Determine rate adaptation support from registers

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: <7c990cea-16a7-14c6-3328-632c14df0388@seco.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:17:20 -0500
From:   Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/4] phy: aquantia: Determine rate adaptation
 support from registers

On 1/3/23 17:05, Sean Anderson wrote:
> This attempts to address the problems first reported in [1]. Tim has an
> Aquantia phy where the firmware is set up to use "5G XFI" (underclocked
> 10GBASE-R) when rate adapting lower speeds. This results in us
> advertising that we support lower speeds and then failing to bring the
> link up. To avoid this, determine whether to enable rate adaptation
> based on what's programmed by the firmware. This is "the worst choice"
> [2], but we can't really do better until we have more insight into
> what the firmware is doing. At the very least, we can prevent bad
> firmware from causing us to advertise the wrong modes.
> 
> Past submissions may be found at [3, 4].
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CAJ+vNU3zeNqiGhjTKE8jRjDYR0D7f=iqPLB8phNyA2CWixy7JA@mail.gmail.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221118171643.vu6uxbnmog4sna65@skbuf/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221114210740.3332937-1-sean.anderson@seco.com/
> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221128195409.100873-1-sean.anderson@seco.com/
> 
> Changes in v5:
> - Add missing PMA/PMD speed bits
> - Don't handle PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA, and simplify logic
> 
> Changes in v4:
> - Reorganize MDIO defines
> - Fix kerneldoc using - instead of : for parameters
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - Update speed register bits
> - Fix incorrect bits for PMA/PMD speed
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Move/rename phylink_interface_max_speed
> - Rework to just validate things instead of modifying registers
> 
> Sean Anderson (4):
>   net: phy: Move/rename phylink_interface_max_speed
>   phy: mdio: Reorganize defines
>   net: mdio: Update speed register bits
>   phy: aquantia: Determine rate adaptation support from registers
> 
>  drivers/net/phy/aquantia_main.c | 136 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/net/phy/phy-core.c      |  70 ++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/net/phy/phylink.c       |  75 +-----------------
>  include/linux/phy.h             |   1 +
>  include/uapi/linux/mdio.h       | 118 ++++++++++++++++++---------
>  5 files changed, 282 insertions(+), 118 deletions(-)
> 

Although there was a lot of discussion about the final patch, I think the
first 3 are good changes. Can we apply them as-is? Should I resubmit?

--Sean