netdev - Re: [PATCH] e1000e: move force SMBUS near the end of enable

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: <20240416081842.35995b10@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:18:42 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Lifshits, Vitaly" <vitaly.lifshits@...el.com>
Cc: Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
 <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <dima.ruinskiy@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000e: move force SMBUS near the end of enable_ulp
 function

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:15:41 +0300 Lifshits, Vitaly wrote:
> Thank you for this patch and this observation.
> I think that you found a real misbehaviour in the original patch.
> However, I still think that forcing SMBUS functionality shouldn't be 
> part of the ULP enabling flow, since they are two independent 
> configurations.
> 
> I will soon submit a patch where I wrap forcing SMBUS in e1000_shutdown 
> with an if that checks if the FWSM_FW_VALID bit it set.

Why are you submitting a patch instead of asking the author to change
theirs? This is not how code reviews work.