netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] e1000: fix shared interrupt warning message

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:	Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:19:49 +0100
From:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
To:	Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke@...-projects.org>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] e1000: fix shared interrupt warning message

Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> :
[...]
> It is suspected that workarounds in the _up() routine of e1000 can cause 
        ^^^^^^^^^
> the receive unit to be enabled before we're all done initializing the 
> adapter data. An interrupt arriving before we're all done setting up 
> obviously causes problems. To fix, we postpone enabling interrupts 
> completely until the software intialization is finished.

Call me dense but is there a chance that the same receive unit that should
not be enabled now emits interrupts between e1000_up() and request_irq() ?

-- 
Ueimor
-
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