netdev - Re: 2.6.20-rc7: known regressions (v2) (part 1)

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]

Message-ID: <m1k5yz3cxy.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:41:45 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Adam Kropelin <akropel1@...hester.rr.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	jgarzik@...ox.com, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Allen Parker <parker@...hunt.com>, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	gregkh@...e.de, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc7: known regressions (v2) (part 1)

Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> writes:

> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> This email lists some known regressions in 2.6.20-rc7 compared to 2.6.19
>> that are not yet fixed in Linus' tree.
>>
>> If you find your name in the Cc header, you are either submitter of one
>> of the bugs, maintainer of an affectected subsystem or driver, a patch
>> of you caused a breakage or I'm considering you in any other way possibly
>> involved with one or more of these issues.
>
>
>> Subject    : e1000: 82571EB/82572EI PCI-E cards: link is always down
>>              (MSI related)
>> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/16/27
>>              http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/17/182
>> Submitter  : Allen Parker <parker@...hunt.com>
>>              Adam Kropelin <akropel1@...hester.rr.com>
>> Handled-By : Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
>> Status     : problem is being debugged
>
> I probably can't fix this bug. Not only do I doubt that the e1000 driver is at
> fault here, I don't have a system with this particular chipset. Most likely the
> regression comes from a combination of MSI layer rewrites and possibly platform
> issues. We've seen many reports that are similar and all are on the platform
> type mentioned here. I really don't want to point fingers here either.
>
> None of the MSI code in e1000 has changed significantly either. as far as I can
> see, the msi code in e1000 has not changed since 2.6.18. Nonetheless there's no
> way I can debug any of this without a system.
>
> I will address the fact that we are lacking any of these systems to test on, but
> that is not going to get this issue handled (not to mention soon) in the way it
> needs to be.
>
> I strongly encourage the people on the linux-pci list to help out, I'll trace
> the e1000 driver for suspicious activity (again), but I run countless tests on
> the latest trees and nothing has shown up recently, other than Eric Biederman's
> msi irq reclaim leak fix.
>
> Perhaps Adam can git-bisect this issue? Adam?

Do we have any explanation about the weird /proc/interrupts output?
i.e. Multiple MSI irqs being assigned to the same card?

Does /sbin/ifconfig ethN down ; /sbin/ifconfig ethN up have anything to do
with the duplication in /proc/interrupts?

I can't see any way for a pci device that doesn't support msi-x to be assigned
multiple interrupts simultaneously.

I just skimmed through the code and there hasn't been any significant
generic MSI work since 2.6.19.

Did this device really work with MSI enabled in 2.6.19?

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html