netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10473] New: Infinite loop "b44: eth0: powering down PHY"

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:02:37 -0300
From:	"Nelson A. de Oliveira" <naoliv@...il.com>
To:	"Michael Buesch" <mb@...sch.de>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
	"Gary Zambrano" <zambrano@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10473] New: Infinite loop "b44: eth0: powering down PHY"

Hi!

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> wrote:
> On Friday 18 April 2008 20:09:36 Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
>  > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> wrote:
>  > >  > b44_poll: istat = 0x00000400
>  > >
>  > >  Hm, a descriptor error. Smells like my DMA fix actually broke this, damit.
>  > >  On which architecture are you running?
>  >
>  > i386 here.
>
>  Hm, I tested my patch on i386.
>  So I'm not sure what's going on, actually. And the patch was pretty
>  trivial and I really can't find a bug in it.
>  So you say 2.6.24 was still working?

Strange... compiled 2.6.24.4, 2.6.24 and 2.6.23 here and they are all
stopping with this:

b44: eth0: Link is up at 100 Mbps, full duplex.
b44: eth0: Flow control is off for TX and off for RX.

And it seems to keep waiting for something. The system isn't freezed
(as CTRL+ALT+DEL kills the running processes and correctly reboots the
machine).

With Debian's 2.6.24.4 it is working.
With vanilla 2.6.25 and my config it just enters an infinite loop of
"b44: eth0: powering down PHY".
Can different GCC versions cause this? Can a bad .config file cause
things like that? (I am using this .config for a long time and it has
always been working correctly, at least until now)

Thank you!

Best regards,
Nelson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html