netdev - Re: [PATCH] forcedeth: Fix kexec regression

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: <200808201512.12583.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:12:11 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	"Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Jesse Barnes" <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	"Simon Arlott" <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] forcedeth: Fix kexec regression

On Wednesday, 20 of August 2008, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> writes:
> 
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> >
> > forcedeth: Fix kexec regression
> >
> > Fix regression tracked as
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11361 and
> > caused by commit f735a2a1a4f2a0f5cd823ce323e82675990469e2
> > ("[netdrvr] forcedeth: setup wake-on-lan before shutting down")
> > that makes network adapters integrated into the NVidia
> > MCP55 chipsets fail to work in kexeced kernels.  The problem appears
> > to be that if the adapter is put into D3_hot during ->shutdown(),
> > it cannot be brought back into D0 after kexec (ref.
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121900062814967&w=4).  Therefore,
> > only put forcedeth into D3 during ->shutdown() if the system is to be
> > powered off.
> 
> Any chance we can fix this by teaching the forcedeth driver to
> bring a card out of PCI_D3hot?

Maybe, but that's not what I'm able to do at the moment. :-)

Yinghai Lu thinks that the hardware has a problem with that, though.

> The kexec on panic guys are going to need that and it is just generally
> more robust all of the way around than a special case in shutdown
> based on system_state.

Actually, system_state == SYSTEM_POWER_OFF is a special case already, since
it is the only case in which ACPI gets involved.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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