netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] net: fec: Refactor MAC reset to function

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: <20250205170608.15076b93@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 17:06:08 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>
Cc: Laurent Badel <laurentbadel@...on.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 <imx@...ts.linux.dev>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
 "Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>, Michal Swiatkowski
 <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>, Jacob Keller
 <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>, Shenwei Wang
 <shenwei.wang@....com>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric
 Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: fec: Refactor MAC reset to function

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 14:53:50 +0100 Csókás Bence wrote:
> On 2025. 02. 04. 16:45, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>  > Please don't post new versions in-reply-to, and add lore links to
>  > the previous version in the changelog.  
> 
> Will do. Is it okay to only include the last version, or should I 
> collect them going back to v1?

All.

> > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 10:37:54 +0100 Csókás, Bence wrote:  
> >> For instance, as of now, `fec_stop()` does not check for
> >> `FEC_QUIRK_NO_HARD_RESET`, meaning the MII/RMII mode is cleared on eg.
> >> a PM power-down event; and `fec_restart()` missed the refactor renaming
> >> the "magic" constant `1` to `FEC_ECR_RESET`.  
> > 
> > Laurent responded to v1 saying this was intentional. Please give more
> > details on what problem you're seeing and on what platforms. Otherwise
> > this is not a fix but refactoring.  
> 
> True, but he also said:
> On 2025. 01. 21. 17:09, Badel, Laurent wrote:
>  > If others disagree and there's a consensus that this change is ok,   
> I'm happy
>  > for the patch to get through, but I tend to err on the side of   
> caution in such
>  > cases.  
> 
> I understand he is cautious, but I'd argue that the fact that two people 
> already posted Reviewed-by: (not counting Simon, who since withdrew it), 
> means that others also agree that we should err on the OTHER side of 
> caution, and do the check in both cases. He also mentions that the 
> reason he didn't do the check in `fec_stop()` was that he believed that 
> the only time that gets called is on driver/interface remove, but that 
> is not the case, as I outlined in the message already.

That's a bit of a he said, she said. Either you're see a problem 
and you can describe clearly the behavior you see, and on what
platform. Or you're just improving the code speculatively, and 
it's not a fix. The patch as is would end up in stable.

To be clear, nobody is against the patch itself, the question is
whether its a fix or refactoring.