linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:09:05 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Marcin Ślusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jean-Baptiste Vignaud <vignaud@...dmail.fr>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	shemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-net <linux-net@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time

On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 01:43:48PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 08/06/2007 03:03 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > But, since level types don't need this retriggers too much I think
> > this "don't mask interrupts by default" idea should be rethinked:
> > is there enough gain to risk such hard to diagnose errors?
> >   
> > 
> 
> I reverted those masking changes in Fedora and the baffling problem
> with 3Com 3C905 network adapters went away.
> 
> Before, they would print:
> 
> eth0: transmit timed out, tx_status 00 status e601.
>   diagnostics: net 0ccc media 8880 dma 0000003a fifo 0000
> eth0: Interrupt posted but not delivered -- IRQ blocked by another device?
>   Flags; bus-master 1, dirty 295757(13) current 295757(13)
>   Transmit list 00000000 vs. f7150a20.
>   0: @f7150200  length 80000070 status 0c010070
>   1: @f71502a0  length 80000070 status 0c010070
>   2: @f7150340  length 8000005c status 0c01005c
> 
> Now they just work, apparently...
> 
> So why not just revert the change?
> 

Ingo has written about such possibility. But, it would be good
to know which precisely place is to blame, as well. Since this
diagnosing takes time, I think Chuck is right, and maybe at least
this temporary patch for resend.c without this warning, should
be recomended for stables (2.6.21 and 2.6.22)?

Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/