From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DC5C433EF for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 16:41:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1380400AbiAaQlb (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:41:31 -0500 Received: from elvis.franken.de ([193.175.24.41]:49232 "EHLO elvis.franken.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1379067AbiAaQla (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:41:30 -0500 Received: from uucp (helo=alpha) by elvis.franken.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1nEZk7-000514-00; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:41:27 +0100 Received: by alpha.franken.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5D8BDC1F70; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:41:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:41:05 +0100 From: Thomas Bogendoerfer To: "Neftin, Sasha" Cc: Jesse Brandeburg , Tony Nguyen , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Fuxbrumer, Devora" , "Ruinskiy, Dima" Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: e1000e: Recover at least in-memory copy of NVM checksum Message-ID: <20220131164105.GA29636@alpha.franken.de> References: <20220127150807.26448-1-tbogendoerfer@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:51:07PM +0200, Neftin, Sasha wrote: > Hello Thomas, > For security reasons starting from the TGL platform SPI controller will be > locked for SW access. I've double-checked with our HW architect, not from > SPT, from TGP. So, first, we can change the mac type e1000_pch_cnp to > e1000_pch_tgp (as fix for initial patch) ok, that would fix the mentioned bug. Are you sending a patch for that ? > Do we want (second) to allow HW initialization with the "wrong" NVM > checksum? It could cause unexpected (HW) behavior in the future. Even if you > will "recover" check in shadow RAM - there is no guarantee that NVM is good. sure. Out of curiosity why is the NVM fixup there in the first place ? Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]