linux-kernel - 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]

Message-ID: <20080921132753.5689b564@infradead.org>
Date:	Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:27:53 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
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 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:20:57 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:43:32PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven
> (arjan@...radead.org) wrote:
> > > @@ -3174,6 +3176,10 @@ static void ipw2100_irq_tasklet(struct
> > > ipw2100_priv *priv) if (inta & IPW2100_INTA_FATAL_ERROR) {
> > >  		printk(KERN_WARNING DRV_NAME
> > >  		       ": Fatal interrupt. Scheduling firmware
> > > restart.\n");
> > > +		WARN_ON(1);
> > > +
> > > +		BUG_ON(ipw2100_max_fatal_ints-- <= 0);
> > 
> > BUG_ON in interrupt context is just extremely hostile, since it
> > means the box is dead.
> >
> > also I would suggest using WARN_ON_ONCE() 
> 
> 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.


> 
> 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.
--
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/