netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 1/2] net: phy: marvell: 88e1111: define gigabit features

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: <697e05a3-9ae0-4a84-88ed-9efba98316b1@bootlin.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:31:56 +0100
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Josua Mayer <josua@...id-run.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 1/2] net: phy: marvell: 88e1111: define
 gigabit features

On 21/01/2026 16:06, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

> If you want to try and work out what the media side should be, then
> I think we're basically going to end up needing our own database for
> every transceiver out there... which leads us towards the model that
> vendors use: only accepting transceivers we know about (which leads
> to claims of "vendor lock-in" for this technology.)

Does the current model of applying the fixups/quirks fits that bill of
having some internal database ?

Thing is, from my tests there are modules (e.g. Prolabs GLC-GE-100FX-C)
where neither the eeprom nor the integrated PHY's reported capabilities
are correct. The only reliable thing we have then is the SFP module's
vendor_name + vendor_pn.

>From then on, we may say "We trust whatever comes out of reading the
eeprom + applying the quirks" ?

Or am I relying too much on the quirks ?

Maxime