linux-kernel - Re: [E1000-devel] 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: <49F0D22E.6050101@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:40:14 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...oscopio.com>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] e1000: "eeprom checksum is not valid" after kexec

On 04/23/2009 04:41 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 04/23/2009 04:10 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
>>> Have you tried b43fcd7dc7b, found in v2.6.30-rc3?
>> I've tried 2.6.30-rc3-next-20090423 without success.
> 
> You mean next-20090423. The patch is really found there.
> 
> But, then, I realize you mean reverting these patches for the kernel
> that is running or the kernel that is being kexec'd?

The latter.

> If b43fcd7dc7b is applied to the running kernel, it fixes the shutdown
> issue, and the next loaded kernel probes e1000 fine.

Makes sense.

> If you are reverting 4a865905f in the kexec'd kernel and the running
> kernel does not have b43fcd7dc7b, then I'd like to test the revert for
> my case here, which is e100.

To make things clear: on that machine, there was stock opensuse 11.1
distro kernel which is 2.6.27-based (no b43fcd7dc7b). I needed to debug
a wireless bug, so I kexec'ed wireless-testing (contains 4a865905f already).

So in fact, 4a865905f from the testing kernel triggered a bug fixed in
near past by b43fcd7dc7b.

Did the other two e100* drivers suffer from the same and were fixed
recently? It would render kexec pretty unusable from the older kernels
if this is not going to be fixed anyhow :(.
--
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/