benjojo.co.uk

benjojo posted 23 Apr 2025 15:38 +0000

Trying to bring up a box without any BaseT ports, went into the spare optics box, picked something that looks vaguely 10G SFP+ stuck it in the workstation and uh, dmesg was not happy

System basically said

this optic is ass, interface terminated

no seriously, even reloading the driver wont bring that port back >:(

ixgbe 0000:c1:00.0: failed to initialize because an unsupported SFP+ module type was detected / removed PHC on enp193s0f0

benjojo replied 23 Apr 2025 15:46 +0000
in reply to: https://chaos.social/users/f4grx/statuses/114388049427630058

@f4grx I think it just read the EEPROM and was like, "nope, fuck that" and killed the whole port

f4grx@chaos.social replied 23 Apr 2025 15:49 +0000
in reply to: https://benjojo.co.uk/u/benjojo/h/qMXPgkVH35d827xVB4

@benjojo hmm, just found this: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/unsupported-sfp-module.84555/

or this? violently patch the NIC eeprom to allow all transceivers? https://forums.servethehome.com/index.php?threads/patching-intel-x520-eeprom-to-unlock-all-sfp-transceivers.24634/

benjojo replied 23 Apr 2025 16:22 +0000
in reply to: https://chaos.social/users/f4grx/statuses/114388067890620107

@f4grx I mean it is just my desktop so I can reboot it and go on my day, I can also live without this optic, I just brought this box up in a different way (lol debian live install via USB NIC)

992jo@chaos.social replied 23 Apr 2025 16:05 +0000
in reply to: https://benjojo.co.uk/u/benjojo/h/q48g4k3f84nrtjGDND

@benjojo iirc thats the default behavior of some of the intel NICs, even if you insert an 10G Ethernet SFP and not as in this case one for fibrechannel. Have you set the kernel parameter for 3rd party optics? I am curious what happens when you do that.

benjojo replied 23 Apr 2025 16:23 +0000
in reply to: https://chaos.social/users/992jo/statuses/114388129661008150

@992jo I just moved on with bringing up the server in a different way (USB NIC + debian netinstall lol)

manawyrm@chaos.socia.. replied 23 Apr 2025 16:58 +0000
in reply to: https://benjojo.co.uk/u/benjojo/h/q48g4k3f84nrtjGDND

@benjojo Why do we even allow vendors to do this "mimimimi, unsupported bla" crap in the mainline kernel?

snep@y.diskcat.com replied 23 Apr 2025 17:06 +0000
in reply to: https://chaos.social/users/manawyrm/statuses/114388337722780739

@manawyrm @benjojo Does the check itself actually happen in the kernel module or does the NIC just report to the module an invalid SFP module is inserted and stop to operate any further? :neocat_think:

benjojo replied 23 Apr 2025 17:46 +0000
in reply to: https://y.diskcat.com/users/snep/statuses/114388368083081284

@snep @manawyrm I mean for what it's worth there is a good chance that this sfp was not even claiming to be compatible with Ethernet (it could have been one of my many random 8G FC optics).

So I can understand if it wants to reject the optic, but maybe not in a way the zoop's the port out of existence until the system is rebooted