netdev - Re: ethtool module info only reports hex info

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <240d69aa-7f33-469f-8281-e254d5d0c85d@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 14:14:52 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Frederic TOULBOT <ftoulbot@...leway.com>
Cc: mkubecek@...e.cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ethtool module info only reports hex info

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:23:05AM +0200, Frederic TOULBOT wrote:
> Hello, I have the impression that there is an unwanted change in the
> output of the ethtool -m command with a certain QSFP type
> 
> I tested versions 6.5-1 / 5.16-1 / 5.4-1
> 
> The bug seems very close to this one
> https://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2023/11/23/118
> 
> lsb_release -a
> No LSB modules are available.
> Distributor ID: Ubuntu
> Description: Ubuntu 22.04.4 LTS
> Release: 22.04
> Codename: jammy
> 
> With ethtool 6.5-1 and 5.16-1
> ~# ethtool -m ens1f1
> Offset Values
> ------ ------
> 0x0000: 11 07 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x0010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 1d 0e 00 00 81 85 00 00 00 00
> 0x0020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x0030: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x0040: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x0050: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x0060: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0x0070: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 
> And with version 5.4.1, we receive the expected result

Could you check it is being built with ETHTOOL_ENABLE_PRETTY_DUMP.

If you can build from source, maybe use gdb and check what is
happening in eeprom_parse()?

	  Andrew