| 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 PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:37:46 -0800
From: "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Frederik Deweerdt" <frederik.deweerdt@...og.eu>,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, zdenek.kabelac@...il.com,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] BUG: bad unlock balance detected! e1000e
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:43:46 +0100
> Frederik Deweerdt <frederik.deweerdt@...og.eu> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:08:01PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:03:37 +0100
>> > Frederik Deweerdt <frederik.deweerdt@...og.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > It some error checking is missing in e1000e: debug contention on NVM
>> > > SWFLAG
>> > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 12:24:09PM +0100, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>> > > > Hi
>> > > >
>> > > > During occasional scan of message log - I've found out this BUG which
>> > > > happened on Dec3 with the -rc7 from that day.
>> > > > (So if it's now fixed in current git feel free to ignore :))
>> > > >
>> > > > My machine T61 - C2D, 2GB, 64bit kernel - message appeared during
>> > > > shutdown and was actually not noticed by me...
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > NetworkManager: <WARN> nm_signal_handler(): Caught signal 15,
>> > > > shutting down normally.
>> > > > NetworkManager: <info> (eth0): now unmanaged
>> > > > NetworkManager: <info> (eth0): device state change: 3 -> 1
>> > > > NetworkManager: <info> (eth0): cleaning up...
>> > > > NetworkManager: <info> (eth0): taking down device.
>> > > >
>> > > > =====================================
>> > > > [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
>> > > > -------------------------------------
>> >
>> > (top-posting repaired. Please don't do that!!!).
>> Yep, sorry.
>> >
>> > > Hello Zdenek,
>> > >
>> > > This could be due to 717d438d1fde94decef874b9808379d1f4523453
>> > > "e1000e: debug contention on NVM SWFLAG"
>> > > Error handling is missing from e1000_reset_hw_ich8lan so it may happen
>> > > that we don't acquire the nvm_mutex if the card times out.
>> > >
>> > > Adding Thomas to CC.
>> >
>> > yup. 2.6.27 needs fixing also.
>> >
>> > Like this?
>> I don't think so, e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan() locks and
>> e1000_release_swflag_ich8lan() unlocks.
>
> urgh, OK, I made the mistake of reading the comments.
>
>> I think it is more along the
>> lines of:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c b/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c
>> index 523b971..f971b83 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c
>> @@ -1892,7 +1892,13 @@ static s32 e1000_reset_hw_ich8lan(struct e1000_hw *hw)
>> */
>> ctrl |= E1000_CTRL_PHY_RST;
>> }
>> +
>> ret_val = e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan(hw);
>> + if (ret_val) {
>> + hw_dbg(hw, "Failed to acquire NVM swflag");
>> + return ret_val;
>> + }
>> +
>> hw_dbg(hw, "Issuing a global reset to ich8lan");
>> ew32(CTRL, (ctrl | E1000_CTRL_RST));
>> msleep(20);
>>
>>
>> But I'm not sure we should cancel the ongoing reset if the card times
>> out...
>>
>
> Yes, something like that. Or something like
>
> --- a/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c~a
> +++ a/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c
> @@ -1940,12 +1940,14 @@ static s32 e1000_reset_hw_ich8lan(struct
> ctrl |= E1000_CTRL_PHY_RST;
> }
> ret_val = e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan(hw);
> - hw_dbg(hw, "Issuing a global reset to ich8lan\n");
> - ew32(CTRL, (ctrl | E1000_CTRL_RST));
> - msleep(20);
> + if (!ret_val) {
> + hw_dbg(hw, "Issuing a global reset to ich8lan\n");
> + ew32(CTRL, (ctrl | E1000_CTRL_RST));
> + msleep(20);
>
> - /* release the swflag because it is not reset by hardware reset */
> - e1000_release_swflag_ich8lan(hw);
> + /* release the swflag because it is not reset by hardware reset */
> + e1000_release_swflag_ich8lan(hw);
> + }
>
> ret_val = e1000e_get_auto_rd_done(hw);
> if (ret_val) {
> _
>
>
> Dunno. It's e1000-developer-summoning-dance time.
>
Actually, if we time out trying to acquire the swflag, we still want
to reset the part because we are most likely in an unrecoverable
state.
So I would suggest the following
--- a/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c~a
+++ a/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c
@@ -1940,9 +1940,10 @@ static s32 e1000_reset_hw_ich8lan(struct
ctrl |= E1000_CTRL_PHY_RST;
}
ret_val = e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan(hw);
hw_dbg(hw, "Issuing a global reset to ich8lan\n");
ew32(CTRL, (ctrl | E1000_CTRL_RST));
msleep(20);
+ if (!ret_val) {
-
- /* release the swflag because it is not reset by hardware reset */
- e1000_release_swflag_ich8lan(hw);
+ /* release the swflag because it is not reset by
hardware reset */
+ e1000_release_swflag_ich8lan(hw);
+ }
Of course, we will want to add a comment to the fact that we still
want to reset the part, even if we have not acquired the lock because
we are in an unrecoverable state.
I can provide a patch in a few minutes.
--
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists