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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171218115817.GA17054@amd>
Date:   Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:58:18 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>, 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 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

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)