netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net/mlx5: query_mcia_reg fail logging at debug severity

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: <20251029164924.25404-1-mattc@purestorage.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 10:49:24 -0600
From: Matthew W Carlis <mattc@...estorage.com>
To: gal@...dia.com
Cc: adailey@...estorage.com,
	ashishk@...estorage.com,
	kuba@...nel.org,
	mattc@...estorage.com,
	mbloch@...dia.com,
	msaggi@...estorage.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	saeedm@...dia.com,
	tariqt@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net/mlx5: query_mcia_reg fail logging at debug severity

On Wed, 29 Oct 2025, Gal Pressman wrote:
> Allow me to split the discussion to two questions:
> 1. Is this an error?
> 2. Should it be logged?
> 
> Do we agree that the answer to #1 is yes?
> 
> For #2, I think it should, but we can probably improve the situation
> with extack instead of a print.

I think its an 'expected error' if the module is not present. I agree.

For 2 I think if the user runs "ethtool -m" on a port with no module,
they received an error message stating something along the lines of
"module not present" and the kernel didn't have any log messages about
it that would be near to 'the best' solution. I specifically suffer pain
from the case of an unused port (no module installed).

I took a peek at the SFP+ and QSFP connector specifications. It looks
like they do have pins reserved for module presence so I'm wondering if
the firmware exposes a mechanism for the mlx driver to check the module
presence. This would clear up essentially every issue with this particular
case because I have curious people seeing the existing message & then
questioning me about whether is the cause of some other problem 
(much of the time not even a networking problem) when in the port is
simply 'unused'.

Cheers!
-Matt