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:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:24:04 +0200
From:   "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, jacob.e.keller@...el.com
Cc:     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, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] v4.15-rc2 on thinkpad x60: ethernet stopped
 working

On 12/18/2017 17:50, Neftin, Sasha wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-wired-lan mailing list
> Intel-wired-lan@...osl.org
> https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan

Pavel, any update? Is Benjamin's last patch solved your network problem?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists