netdev - Re: [PATCH] Add eeprom_bad_csum_allow module option to e1000.

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: <20071023.145339.55504234.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	davej@...hat.com
Cc:	jeff@...zik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com, ajax@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add eeprom_bad_csum_allow module option to e1000.

From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:20:26 -0400

> Indeed. This is a common enough problem that not including it causes
> more pain than its worth.  I have two affected boxes myself that I
> actually thought the hardware was dead before I tried ajax's patch.
>
> People aren't going to report this as a bug. They aren't going to
> try out patches, they're going to do what I did and stick another
> network card in the box and go on with life.
>
> Our users deserve better than this.

Seconded.  The resistence to this patch is just flat-out rediculious,
just like it was in the e100 case.

And I think all of this "e1000 is different!" talk is merely a
scarecrow for the fact that Intel simply doesn't want this patch
merged for some other reason.
-
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