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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:40:01 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> CC: Adam Jackson <ajax@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add eeprom_bad_csum_allow module option to e1000. Kok, Auke wrote: > Adam Jackson wrote: >> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 09:18 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote: >>> Adam Jackson wrote: >>>> When the EEPROM gets corrupted, you can fix it with ethtool, but only if >>>> the module loads and creates a network device. But, without this option, >>>> if the EEPROM is corrupted, the driver will not create a network device. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson <ajax@...hat.com> >>> NAK >>> >>> wrong list, not sent to me, and while for e100 I was OK with this patch, for e1000 >>> it really does not make sense to 'just allow' a bad checksum - if your eeprom is >>> randomly messed up then you cannot just fix it like this anyway. >> That's strange, I managed to recover an otherwise horked e1000 with it. >> What should I have done instead? > > > Dump the eeprom and send us a copy, plus any and all information to the card, > system etc.. I realize that you need the patch to actually create it but the > danger is that people will start using it *without* troubleshooting the real > issue. In various systems the eeprom checksum failure is actually due to a > misconfigured powersavings feature and the checksum is really not bad at all, but > the card just reports random values. > > In any case, this patch should not be merged. We often send it around to users to > debug their issue in case it involves eeproms, but merging it will just conceal > the real issue and all of a sudden a flood of people stop reporting *real* issues > to us. Sorry, I disagree. Just as with e100, if there is a clear way the user can recover their setup -- and Adam says his was effective -- I don't see why we should be denying users the ability to use their own hardware. Jeff - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists