netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next] ixgbe: e610: remove redundant assignment

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: <eae106f6-f1b3-4a84-8831-6be0bd573990@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 15:32:38 -0800
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: "Kwapulinski, Piotr" <piotr.kwapulinski@...el.com>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew@...n.ch>
CC: "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "dan.carpenter@...aro.org"
	<dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, "horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>,
	"pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de" <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next] ixgbe: e610: remove redundant
 assignment



On 2/5/2026 12:35 AM, Kwapulinski, Piotr wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 7:11 PM
>> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>; Kwapulinski, Piotr <piotr.kwapulinski@...el.com>
>> Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; dan.carpenter@...aro.org; horms@...nel.org; pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de
>> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next] ixgbe: e610: remove redundant assignment
>>
>> I actually don't know which is "correct", as I don't really understand what the register interface expects, and how it will get interpreted by the firmware...
>>
>> Maybe the byteswap of each 4-byte block is right? but I'm really uncertain now...
>>
>> Presumably it expects flags first and then opcode? we're writing it that way now on a LE system.. But on a BE system thats going to be byteswapped before going into the register.. so our 4byte chunk would end up potentially reversing the flags and opcode w.r.t what the firmware sees??
>>
>> Hmm.....
> I'll work out the solution. Meanwhile, possibly it's good idea to take this patch since this code is unnecessary regardless of the final outcome.
> Thanks,
> Piotr
> 

Makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Jake

> [...]