linux-kernel - Re: e1000: "eeprom checksum is not valid" after kexec

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: <49F08B15.4080808@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:36:53 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: e1000: "eeprom checksum is not valid" after kexec

On 04/23/2009 05:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> 4a865905f685eaefaedf6ade362323dc52aa703b
>> (PCI PM: Make pci_set_power_state() handle devices with no PM support)
>> breaks e1000 after being kexec'ed. These reverts fix the problem:
>>     Revert "PCI PM: Make pci_set_power_state() handle devices with no PM
>> support"
>>     Revert "PCI PM: Introduce __pci_[start|complete]_power_transition()
>> (rev. 2)"
>>
>> I reverted the second one
> 
> I don't think it can be reverted.

But it works :). I'm not saying, it's correct to revert them upstream.
It was just confirmation, that it causes the problem.

>> just for an easy revert of the former one, which is actually the culprit.
> 
> Can you just try to revert the changes in pci_raw_set_power_state() and check
> if that has any effect (it shouldn't)?

Please send a patch. I'm lost in the changes done there. Let's say
against the top of 20090423 next tree.

>> e1000: 0000:02:01.0: e1000_probe: Invalid MAC Address
>> e1000: 0000:02:01.0: e1000_probe: (PCI-X:33MHz:64-bit) 00:00:00:00:00:00
> 
> So this is after kexec?

yes

> What happens if you remove just the
> 
> 	/* Check if we're already there */
> 	if (dev->current_state == state)
> 		return 0;
> 
> part from pci_set_power_state()?

Will try later.

Thanks.
--
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/