linux-kernel - Re: Intel e1000e driver bug on stable (6.9.x)

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: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:58:11 +0200
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Ismael Luceno <ismael@...ev.co.uk>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>, Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>,
 Vitaly Lifshits <vitaly.lifshits@...el.com>,
 Linux kernel regressions list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: Intel e1000e driver bug on stable (6.9.x)

On 13.06.24 10:35, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:33:19PM +0200, Ismael Luceno wrote:
>>
>> I noticed that the NIC started to fail on a couple of notebooks [0]
>> [1] after upgrading to 6.9.1.
>>
>> I tracked down the problem to commit 861e8086029e ("e1000e: move force
>> SMBUS from enable ulp function to avoid PHY loss issue", 2024-03-03),
>> included in all 6.9.x releases.
>>
>> The fix is in commit bfd546a552e1 ("e1000e: move force SMBUS near
>> the end of enable_ulp function", 2024-05-28) from mainline.
>>
>> The NIC fails right after boot on both systems I tried; I mention
>> because the description is a bit unclear about that on the fix, maybe
>> other systems are affected differently.
> 
> Now queued up, thanks.

I see that they are in the latest 6.6.y and 6.9.y stable-rcs. Thing is:

bfd546a552e1 causes other regressions, which is why Hui Wang submitted a
revert for that one:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240611062416.16440-1-hui.wang@canonical.com/

Vitaly Lifshits meanwhile submitted a change that afaics is meant to fix
that regression:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613120134.224585-1-vitaly.lifshits@intel.com/

CCed both so they can comment.

Not sure what's the best way forward here, maybe it is "not picking up
bfd546a552e1 for now and waiting a few more days till the dust settles".

Ciao, Thorsten