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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <030c7d65-bead-46d0-8422-8a9ff0548d72@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 16:23:49 +0200 From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org> To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, s-vadapalli@...com, r-gunasekaran@...com, vigneshr@...com, srk@...com, horms@...nel.org, p-varis@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 6/7] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw-qos: Add Frame Preemption MAC Merge support On 30/11/2023 15:22, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 01:49:03PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: >> Thanks for the debug instructions. Indeed lldpad tries to enable MM TX and the >> network drivers set_mm() hook gets called and returns success but still >> lldpad sees some error. >> >> I've also confirmed that ethnl_set_mm() runs successfully and returns 1. >> I suppose something is going wrong in user-space with libnl? >> >> Nov 21 11:50:02 am62xx lldpad[708]: eth0: Link partner preemption capability supported >> Nov 21 11:50:02 am62xx lldpad[708]: eth0: Link partner preemption capability not enabled >> Nov 21 11:50:02 am62xx lldpad[708]: eth0: Link partner preemption capability not active >> Nov 21 11:50:02 am62xx lldpad[708]: eth0: Link partner minimum fragment size: 124 octets >> Nov 21 11:50:02 am62xx lldpad[708]: eth0: initiating MM verification with a retry interval of 134 ms... >> Nov 21 11:50:02 am62xx lldpad[708]: ethtool: kernel reports: integer out of range >> >> >> full debug log is below. > > Ah, you got confused. Openlldp issues multiple ETHTOOL_MSG_MM_SET > netlink messages. What you observe is that one of them succeeds, and > then another one returns -ERANGE before even calling the driver's > set_mm() method. > > And that comes from here in net/ethtool/mm.c: > > 149 const struct nla_policy ethnl_mm_set_policy[ETHTOOL_A_MM_MAX + 1] = { > 150 » [ETHTOOL_A_MM_HEADER]» » = NLA_POLICY_NESTED(ethnl_header_policy), > 151 » [ETHTOOL_A_MM_VERIFY_ENABLED]» = NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U8, 1), > 152 » [ETHTOOL_A_MM_VERIFY_TIME]» = NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U32, 1, 128), // <---- here > 153 » [ETHTOOL_A_MM_TX_ENABLED]» = NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U8, 1), > 154 » [ETHTOOL_A_MM_PMAC_ENABLED]» = NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U8, 1), > 155 » [ETHTOOL_A_MM_TX_MIN_FRAG_SIZE]»= NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U32, 60, 252), > 156 }; > > You are reporting in .get_mm() a maximum verify time which is larger > than the core ethtool is willing to accept in a further .set_mm() call. > And openlldp will try to max out on the verify time. Hence the -ERANGE. You are spot on on this. Thanks. :) > > The range I chose for the policy comes from 802.3-2018 clause 30.14.1.6, > which says that the aMACMergeVerifyTime variable has a range between 1 > and 128 ms inclusive. I forced driver state->max_verify_time = 128; and now that -ERANGE error is gone and the lldp test case passes. I also applied your patch to ethtool_mm.sh and don't see the error with 'addFragSize 0' anymore Should I include your patch in the next revision of this series? -- cheers, -roger
Powered by blists - more mailing lists