This bug has been migrated to another issue tracking site. It has been closed here and may no longer be being monitored.

If you would like to get updates for this issue, or to participate in it, you may do so at Red Hat Issue Tracker .
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 2215406 - Ethtool eeprom dump broken in v5.13 on rhel8.6
Summary: Ethtool eeprom dump broken in v5.13 on rhel8.6
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED MIGRATED
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ethtool
Version: 8.6
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Ivan Vecera
QA Contact: Tianhao
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-06-15 20:12 UTC by Brett
Modified: 2023-09-21 13:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-09-21 13:45:30 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
pm-rhel: mirror+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker   RHEL-6085 0 None Migrated None 2023-09-21 14:04:53 UTC
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHELPLAN-160015 0 None None None 2023-06-15 20:12:52 UTC

Description Brett 2023-06-15 20:12:01 UTC
Description of problem:

Running "ethtool -m eth0" on a AMD/Pensando DSC does not work as expected. It also does not work on other vendor NICs that I have tried. When running the same command using Ethtool v5.12 or Ethtool v5.8 it works as expected.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

Ethtool: v5.13
RHEL8.6

How reproducible:

100%

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Run ethtool command to get module eeprom dump
ethtool -m eth0
netlink error: Invalid argument

Actual results:

Ethtool seems to correctly get the module eeprom len (for our case it's 256B), but fails when trying to actually get the module eeprom dump.

ethtool -m eth0
netlink error: Invalid argument

Expected results:

The following results were seen with Ethtool v5.12 from kernel.org on RHEL8.6:

ethtool -m eth0
	Identifier                                : 0x11 (QSFP28)
	Extended identifier                       : 0x10
	Extended identifier description           : 1.5W max. Power consumption
	Extended identifier description           : No CDR in TX, No CDR in RX
	Extended identifier description           : High Power Class (> 3.5 W) not enabled
	Connector                                 : 0x23 (No separable connector)
	Transceiver codes                         : 0x80 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
	Transceiver type                          : 100G Ethernet: 100G Base-CR4 or 25G Base-CR CA-L
	Encoding                                  : 0x05 (64B/66B)
	BR, Nominal                               : 25500Mbps
	Rate identifier                           : 0x00
	Length (SMF,km)                           : 0km
	Length (OM3 50um)                         : 0m
	Length (OM2 50um)                         : 0m
	Length (OM1 62.5um)                       : 0m
	Length (Copper or Active cable)           : 2m
	Transmitter technology                    : 0xa0 (Copper cable unequalized)
	Attenuation at 2.5GHz                     : 4db
	Attenuation at 5.0GHz                     : 6db
	Attenuation at 7.0GHz                     : 8db
	Attenuation at 12.9GHz                    : 11db
	Vendor name                               : FS
	Vendor OUI                                : 00:00:00
	Vendor PN                                 : Q28-PC02
	Vendor rev                                : 5
	Vendor SN                                 : G1912206800
	Date code                                 : 191231
	Revision Compliance                       : SFF-8636 Rev 2.5/2.6/2.7
	Module temperature                        : 45.37 degrees C / 113.67 degrees F
	Module voltage                            : 3.3140 V
	Alarm/warning flags implemented           : No
	Laser tx bias current (Channel 1)         : 0.000 mA
	Laser tx bias current (Channel 2)         : 0.000 mA
	Laser tx bias current (Channel 3)         : 0.000 mA
	Laser tx bias current (Channel 4)         : 0.000 mA
	Transmit avg optical power (Channel 1)    : 0.0000 mW / -inf dBm
	Transmit avg optical power (Channel 2)    : 0.0000 mW / -inf dBm
	Transmit avg optical power (Channel 3)    : 0.0000 mW / -inf dBm
	Transmit avg optical power (Channel 4)    : 0.0000 mW / -inf dBm
	Receiver signal OMA(Channel 1)            : 0.0000 mW / -inf dBm
	Receiver signal OMA(Channel 2)            : 0.0000 mW / -inf dBm
	Receiver signal OMA(Channel 3)            : 0.0000 mW / -inf dBm
	Receiver signal OMA(Channel 4)            : 0.0000 mW / -inf dBm


Additional info:

It looks like there was support for netlink based "ethtool -m" added right before Ethtool v5.13 was release. I'm wondering if this is the cause of the issue.

8b8cb55 (tag: v5.13) build: add list.h to file list in Makefile.am
799146b Release version 5.13.
601ea40 netlink: work around spurious selftest failure
4c8f9e3 Merge branch 'review/getmodule-v4' into master
79c8b58 ethtool: Update manpages to reflect changes to getmodule (-m) command
b2b1924 ethtool: Rename QSFP-DD identifiers to use CMIS
fc47fdb ethtool: Refactor human-readable module EEPROM output for new API
25b64c6 ethtool: Add netlink handler for getmodule (-m)

Comment 1 Ivan Vecera 2023-06-16 07:14:30 UTC
What NIC driver is involved? Inbox or out-of-tree?

Comment 2 Brett 2023-06-16 16:08:47 UTC
Doesn't make a difference here. Both fail in the same manner. IMO this is not a driver issue, but a kernel/ethtool bug.

Comment 3 RHEL Program Management 2023-09-21 13:40:31 UTC
Issue migration from Bugzilla to Jira is in process at this time. This will be the last message in Jira copied from the Bugzilla bug.

Comment 4 RHEL Program Management 2023-09-21 13:45:30 UTC
This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.

Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated.  Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.

To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "RHEL-" followed by an integer.  You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:

"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567

In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.