netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 0/2] fix module info JSON output

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: <9859b471-5635-4e8c-bd63-00919b4a0965@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 21:36:54 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Johannes Eigner <johannes.eigner@...berle.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
	Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>,
	Stephan Wurm <stephan.wurm@...berle.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v2 0/2] fix module info JSON output

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 04:52:42PM +0200, Johannes Eigner wrote:
> In one of our products we need to show the SFP diagnostics in a web
> interface. Therefore we want to use the JSON output of the ethtool
> module information. During integration I found two problems.
> 
> When using `ethtool -j -m sfpX` only the basic module information was
> JSON formatted, the diagnostics part was not. First patch ensures whole
> module information output is JSON formatted for SFP modules.
> 
> The same keys were used for both the actual and threshold values in the
> diagnostics JSON output, which is not valid JSON. Second patch avoids
> this by renaming the threshold keys.
> This solution is not backward compatible. I don't see a possibility to
> fix this in a backward compatible way. If anyone knows a solution,
> please let me know so I can improve the patch.
> Another solution for the second patch would be to rename the keys for
> the actual values instead of the thresholds. But this is also not
> backward compatible. I decided to rename the threshold keys, as this
> aligns with the naming used for the warning and alarm flags.
> Second bug is definitely affecting SFP modules and maybe also affecting
> QSFP and CMIS modules. Possible bug for QSFP and CMIS modules are based
> on my understanding of the code only. I have only access to hardware
> supporting SFP modules.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Eigner <johannes.eigner@...berle.de>

So there are still some open discussions on v1 of these
patches. Please don't merge this version yet.

	 Andrew