netdev - Re: Mark IPW2100 as BROKEN: Fatal interrupt. Scheduling firmware restart.

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:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:57:06 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ipw2100-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhu@...el.com,
	reinette.chatre@...el.com, jgarzik@...ox.com,
	linville@...driver.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: Mark IPW2100 as BROKEN: Fatal interrupt. Scheduling firmware restart.

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 01:27:53PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven (arjan@...radead.org) wrote:
> > Well, I actually wanted to have a bug there because of it, but now I
> > think that annoying repeated warning is enough to bring attention to
> > the problem by putting bug information into some magic special place
> > called kerneloops collection.
> 
> are you more interested in bringing attention than finding something
> that makes the driver work ? I sort of am getting that impression and
> I'd be disappointed if that is the case.

I do think that it can not be fixed without serious intervention of the
Intel (hardware) folks, since bug exists more than 4 years in two
firmwares and lots of very different driver versions and was reproduced
even on 2.4 kernel.

I will experiment with reloading issues as Alan suggested and to
add/remove more surgery into initialization process to be allowed to
'workaround' the issue, since it looks noone else will.

But that's definitely not a fix and in my personal workaround's 10
degrees shit'o'meter this lies around 12.

> > Consider for inclusing for the upcoming kernel to get wider
> > notifications. Yes, it is not a bugfix, I know.
> 
> still more complex than needed; a WARN_ON_ONCE() will be enough.

That allows to dump whatever number of warnings you want. The more we
have, the louder will be customers scream.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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