netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] net/mlx5e: Add logic to read RS-FEC histogram bin ranges from PPHCR

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: <20250918151845.32a90e3e@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:18:45 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Carolina Jubran <cjubran@...dia.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew@...n.ch>, Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>, Pavan Chebbi
 <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman
 <gal@...dia.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Donald Hunter
 <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman
 <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Yael Chemla
 <ychemla@...dia.com>, Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] net/mlx5e: Add logic to read RS-FEC
 histogram bin ranges from PPHCR

On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 22:41:38 +0300 Carolina Jubran wrote:
> On 18/09/2025 18:40, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > I understand that the modes should not be exposed.
> > I don't get why this has anything to do with the number of bins.
> > Does the FW hardcode that the non-Ethernet modes use bins >=16?
> > When you say "internal modes that can report more than 16 bins"
> > it sounds like it uses bins starting from 0, e.g. 0..31.  
> 
> The FW hardcodes that Ethernet modes report up to 16 bins,
> while non-Ethernet modes may report up to 19.
> And yes, those modes use bins starting from 0, e.g. 0..18.

Which means that the number of bins doesn't really matter.
You're purely using the bin count as a second order check
to catch the device being in the wrong mode (and I presume
you think that device in the wrong mode should never enter 
the function given the WARN_ON_ONCE()).

Please check the mode directly or remove the check completely.