linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] v4.15-rc2 on thinkpad x60: ethernet stopped working

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]

Date:   Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:50:19 +0200
From:   "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, jacob.e.keller@...el.com
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, bpoirier@...e.com,
        nix.or.die@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] v4.15-rc2 on thinkpad x60: ethernet stopped
 working

On 12/18/2017 13:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2017-12-18 13:24:40, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
>> On 12/18/2017 12:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>>>>>> In v4.15-rc2+, network manager can not see my ethernet card, and
>>>>>>> manual attempts to ifconfig it up did not really help, either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Card is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82573L Gigabit Ethernet
>>>>>>> Controller
>>>>> ....
>>>>>>> Any ideas ?
>>>>>> Yes , 19110cfbb34d4af0cdfe14cd243f3b09dc95b013 broke it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198047
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix there :
>>>>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151272209903675&w=2
>>>>> I don't see the patch in latest mainline. Not having ethernet
>>>>> is... somehow annoying. What is going on there?
>>>> Generally speaking, e1000 maintainence has been handled very poorly over
>>>> the past few years, I have to say.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes take forever to propagate even when someone other than the
>>>> maintainer provides a working and tested fix, just like this case.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff, please take e1000 maintainence seriously and get these critical
>>>> bug fixes propagated.
>>> No response AFAICT. I guess I should test reverting
>>> 19110cfbb34d4af0cdfe14cd243f3b09dc95b013, then ask you for revert?
>> Hello Pavel,
>>
>> Before ask for reverting 19110cfbb..., please, check if follow patch of
>> Benjamin work for you http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/846825/
> Jacob said, in another email:
>
> # Digging into this, the problem is complicated. The original bug
> # assumed behavior of the .check_for_link call, which is universally not
> # implemented.
> #
> # I think the correct fix is to revert 19110cfbb34d ("e1000e: Separate
> # signaling for link check/link up", 2017-10-10) and find a more proper solution.
>
> ...which makes me think that revert is preffered?
>
> 									Pavel
>
Pavel, before ask for revert - let's check Benjamin's patch following to 
his previous patch. Previous patch was not competed and latest one come 
to complete changes.