netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization

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, 1 Aug 2016 21:32:14 -0400
From:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To:	"Avargil, Raanan" <raanan.avargil@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out
 systim	sanitization

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:01:55AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:09:13PM +0000, Avargil, Raanan wrote:
> >> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per suggestion from Jesse Brandeburg.
> >> 
> >> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier than simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as needed.
> >> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that could/should be converted similarly.
> > 
> > Looks ok to me.
> > Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)?
> > This counter is set to 50. 
> > Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0) and see what happens?
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have direct access to the affected hardware myself,
> so I'd have to prep a test build, hand it off to someone and play relay. I
> could do that, but it'd have some lag and possible multiple round-trips...
> Anyone inside Intel have hardware handy to test on? :p

Was tied up with other work the middle of last week, then on vacation for
a bit. There was some testing feedback provided from someone at neither
Red Hat or Intel, but I'm not sure where it leaves us right now. What
needs to happen next?

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com