netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/9] net: sunhme: Just restart autonegotiation if we can't bring the link up

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: <a5eea573-2418-d4dd-94b7-72bda4978666@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:35:19 -0400
From:   Sean Anderson <seanga2@...il.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/9] net: sunhme: Just restart autonegotiation
 if we can't bring the link up

On 3/15/23 04:20, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:36:05PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> If we've tried regular autonegotiation and forcing the link mode, just
>> restart autonegotiation instead of reinitializing the whole NIC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2@...il.com>
> 
> Hi Sean,
> 
> This patch looks fine to me, as do patches 3 - 4, which is as far as I have
> got with my review.
> 
> I do, however, have a general question regarding most of the patches in this
> series: to what extent have they been tested on HW?

I have tested them with some PCI cards, mostly with the other end autonegotiating
100M. This series doesn't really touch the phy state machines, so I think it is
fine to just make sure the link comes up (and things work after bringing the
interface down and up).

> And my follow-up question is: to what extent should we consider removing
> support for hardware that isn't being tested and therefore has/will likely
> have become broken break at some point? Quattro, the subject of a latter
> patch in this series, seems to be a case in point.

Well, I ordered a quattro card (this hardware is quite cheap on ebay) so
hopefully I can test that. The real question is whether there's anyone using this
on sparc. I tried CCing some sparc users mailing lists in the cover letter, but no
luck so far.

--Sean