From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.tipi-net.de (mail.tipi-net.de [194.13.80.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F016E4772A3; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:07:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790327256; cv=none; b=lN/JrGmGJWP/f9XFLi+kUqTFWa5XWHxbszdjG0ztbADW4GdtbYt/pF+1PdW9xgEu73bpo0uI11SKFw8AgO6wTvwBDSjrJP7neZEW8y4LKspvyo0S4PZSMa7mzMmKFKorQnz5xoWJeAdqOvtyvb71qz63XX9GHi7Ps2HCl09SgrU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790327256; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f/3fNOtJrzRzcYS8PSiH2V1CVb5OseOMX8SNzn9rR2A=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=YGvKca1OtCThyKLlnqlIiPDL4SWQ+lE3BciDTlB6UIiqqep5LRPda128hIN6caxXZ5BJrKXZMSw2Jn08Wmwgg8JXOUUXYCBN+iClevuyuA494qzDWUyN3ejpV0iuW4UNAj61+mqPi+Klhwjed2lk4xbbkjwbpOD9VhaabaoO/ns= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b=cVJZyxwX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b="cVJZyxwX" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 7CB75A4A3F; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 11:07:25 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tipi-net.de; s=dkim; t=1790327247; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=IDpKCRmAJSCwD6WXiupqIREZekd0lmTuFhUI2CzOgnI=; b=cVJZyxwXRK01mBHKaEBdqKf1KVNxTMae+KxAcojdQms/x3sT0OidnU4sN0AabjULeDIrJk RwZhHQ1knQBaoOrf3OTkLzB5Z2zBT2WosDxX0n6vjHjpgSXxT2NbBEEJXodN+pxygJWNuO bCQgQTwTDoULX2WD3Gr6I1y7175bsQ4YzLjzQT5qCMzoRdEL9fa6ScbJGXy5j4Cq/QviY/ f4UFP7RBkGqyOAp4cnakBQ4ARpgL4Vt5G9whpEOeWESEQSSz7G0n41oPxB3+vhIoDhO81r Nw2Q7swl7SysiieJMrr1RCkxrEi4JFTbQ/LAolEwEU5606IHPerCXhpf0SPfqQ== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 11:07:25 +0200 From: Nicolai Buchwitz To: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, kory.maincent@bootlin.com, vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] net: ethtool: don't match a hwtstamp provider on a device without a PHC In-Reply-To: <179025240177.2160803.17736204487729550368@kernel.org> References: <20260923121644.2194183-2-nb@tipi-net.de> <179025240177.2160803.17736204487729550368@kernel.org> Message-ID: X-Sender: nb@tipi-net.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 On 24.9.2026 14:20, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote: > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential > issue(s) to consider. > > Critical: 0 · High: 1 · Medium: 1 · Low: 0 > > If you believe none of the issues are legitimate, please reply to each > issue of Medium severity or higher and explain why the AI is wrong. > If any of them are legitimate and you plan to respin, please let > patchwork > know by including "pw-bot: cr" as a separate line at the end of your > reply > (one such reply per series is enough). > > - [High] The fix is incomplete. > - [Medium] The patch deals with the 0xFFFFFFFF/-1 aliasing through an > open-coded check at one comparison site instead of rejecting the > value… > > -- > [...] > [Severity: High] > Can the same -1 == -1 match still happen in the PHY half of the lookup? Unfortunately yes. In v3 I will reject the value in the netlink policy. > [...] > > [Severity: Medium] > Would it be better to reject 0xFFFFFFFF at the netlink boundary instead > of > adding an open-coded check at one comparison site? Will do in v3 (NLA_POLICY_FULL_RANGE). > [...] pw-bot: cr