netdev - Re: [REGRESSION] 2.6.24-rc7: e1000: Detected Tx Unit Hang

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: <20080118.053712.195382841.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:37:12 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se
Cc:	elendil@...net.nl, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	slavon@...telecom.ru, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] 2.6.24-rc7: e1000: Detected Tx Unit Hang

From: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:00:57 +0100

>  I don't understand the idea with semaphore for enabling/disabling 
>  irq's either the overall logic must safer/better without it.  

They must have had code paths where they didn't know if IRQs were
enabled or not already, so they tried to create something which
approximates the:

	local_irq_save(flags);
	local_irq_restore(flags);

constructs we have for CPU interrupts, so they could go:

	e1000_irq_disable();
	/* ... */
	e1000_irq_enable();

and this would work even if the caller was running
with e1000 interrupts disabled already.

Or, something like that... it is indeed confusing.

Anyways, yes it's totally bogus and should be removed.
--
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