netdev - Re: atl1: WARNING at net/sched/sch

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: <20080915031414.GA3028@havoc.gtf.org>
Date:	Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:14:14 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	jacliburn@...lsouth.net, adobriyan@...il.com, csnook@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: atl1: WARNING at net/sched/sch_generic.c:221

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 04:56:55PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jay Cliburn <jacliburn@...lsouth.net>
> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:26:54 -0500
> 
> > Should a netdev driver be coded such that a watchdog transmit timeout
> > never occurs?
> > 
> > [ 2086.049998] NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0 (atl1): transmit timed out
> > 
> > Or is a watchdog timeout an expected occurrence if a cable is
> > unplugged/plugged?
> 
> If the cable is unplugged, netif_carrier_off() will be (or should
> be) invoked by the driver, and that cancels the watchdog timer.

100% correct :)

As Stephen noted, a transmit timeout is an unhandled condition plain and
simple -- either unhandled by the driver or unhandled by the 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