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]

Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 15:16:57 +0200
From: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
To: Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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

On 5/19/23 14:38, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2023 14:58:00 +0200
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> 
>>>>> +	[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.
> 
> Why would port 0 be broken on 6393x ?
By "broken", I guess Andrew means that if we feed port 0 to
mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal, it will return true, which is wrong since there is no
internal phy for port 0 on 6393X ?
> 
> Marek

-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com