netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: enable support for 88E6361 switch

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: <6643e099-7b72-4da2-aba1-521e1a4c961b@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 14:58:00 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, paul.arola@...us.com,
	scott.roberts@...us.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: enable support for
 88E6361 switch

> >> +	[MV88E6361] = {
> >> +		.prod_num = MV88E6XXX_PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_6361,
> >> +		.family = MV88E6XXX_FAMILY_6393,
> >> +		.name = "Marvell 88E6361",
> >> +		.num_databases = 4096,
> >> +		.num_macs = 16384,
> >> +		.num_ports = 11,
> >> +		/* Ports 1, 2 and 8 are not routed */
> >> +		.invalid_port_mask = BIT(1) | BIT(2) | BIT(8),
> >> +		.num_internal_phys = 5,
> > 
> > Which ports have internal PHYs? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ?  What does
> > mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal() return for these ports, and
> > mv88e6xxx_get_capsmv88e6xxx_get_caps()? I'm wondering if you actually
> > need to list 8 here?
> 
> Indeed there is something wrong here too. I need to tune
> mv88e6393x_phylink_get_caps to reflect 88E6361 differences.
> 
> As stated above, port 3 to 7 are the ones with internal PHY.
> For mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal, I see that it is merely comparing the port index
> to the number of internal phys, so in this case it would advertise (wrongly)
> that ports 0 to 4 have internal phys.

Ports 1 and 2 should hopefully be protected by the
invalid_port_mask. It should not even be possible to create those
ports. port 0 is interesting, and possibly currently broken on
6393. Please take a look at that.

    Andrew

---
pw-bot: cr