linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] alx: add disable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFv23Qnvg98V_-ZfMkHz1e-SrcmD=Qz2m0FqB59hjHdKT_gpKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 09:55:37 +0800
From:   AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@...onical.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        James Cliburn <jcliburn@...il.com>,
        Chris Snook <chris.snook@...il.com>, rakesh@...era.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Emily Chien <emily.chien@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] alx: add disable_wol paramenter

Okay, I'll submit a new patch with some more description of why we
need this feature.
Thanks.

2018-05-10 20:34 GMT+08:00 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 01:58:24PM +0800, AceLan Kao wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> We have some machines using Qualcomm Atheros Killer E2400 Gigabit
>> Ethernet Controller,
>> but none of them has the unintentional wake up issue.
>> We're willing to fix it if we encountered the issue, but before we can
>> do it, we need this feature is supported by the driver.
>>
>> Taking the feature has been removed for 5 years into account, I doubt
>> if we still can reproduce this issue,
>> but again, to verify this issue we need to add back this feature first.
>> Set WoL disabled by default won't introduce any regression but give
>> users and developers a chance to fix it.
>
> The main problem here is the module parameter. That is not going to be
> accepted.
>
> Can you argue the cure is worse than the disease? Is WoL not working
> considered by a lot of people as being a bug? Double wake up is also a
> bug, but not many people care, it does not cause any data corruption,
> etc. So can you argue overall we have a less buggy system, but still
> buggy, if WoL is enabled?
>
> If you can write a convincing Change Message arguing the case, a patch
> simply re-enabling WoL might be accepted.
>
> But you also need to take on the responsibility to help debug the
> failed shutdowns in order to get to the bottom of this problem.
>
>        Andrew