linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] 4.11.0-rc1 panic on shutdown X61s

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: <87shmhjfap.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2017 17:46:06 +0100
From:   Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, lkml@...garu.com,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, vcaputo@...garu.com,
        "linux-pci\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, khalidm <khalidm@...co.com>,
        David Singleton <davsingl@...co.com>,
        Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] 4.11.0-rc1 panic on shutdown X61s

Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 03:55:08PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
>> The only change that IMHO matters happened between v4.10 and v4.11-rc1 is this:
>> 
>> @@ -6276,8 +6274,8 @@ static int e1000e_pm_freeze(struct device *dev)
>>                 /* Quiesce the device without resetting the hardware */
>>                 e1000e_down(adapter, false);
>>                 e1000_free_irq(adapter);
>> +               e1000e_reset_interrupt_capability(adapter);
>>         }
>> -       e1000e_reset_interrupt_capability(adapter);
>> 
>> So, it apparently misses something for the other case, like
>> pci_disable_msi() call or so.
>
> Well, lemme add the people from
>
>   7e54d9d063fa ("e1000e: driver trying to free already-free irq")
>
> to CC then. :-)

Already did that a week ago:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg423379.html

Haven't heard anything back yet.  Wondering if they are waiting for
someone else to submit the pretty obvious revert?  Don't understand why
that should take more than a minute to figure out.  It's not like they
are testing these changes anyway...


Bjørn