netdev - Re: Re:Re: [linux-nics] [PATCH] e1000 in linux-3.18.0: a potential bug

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1419079771.2461.94.camel@jtkirshe-mobl.home>
Date:	Sat, 20 Dec 2014 04:49:31 -0800
From:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:	白家驹 <baijiaju1990@....com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	e1000-devel <e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Re:Re: [linux-nics] [PATCH] e1000 in linux-3.18.0: a potential
 bug

On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 20:47 +0800, 白家驹 wrote:
> Thanks for the reply!
> I run the driver normally, and monitor all function calls in runtime,
> and then find this violation. 

Adding netdev and e1000-devel back onto the CC since Jia-Ju Bai removed
them in his reply...

> 
> At 2014-12-20 18:34:20,"Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 15:50 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> >> I have actually tested e1000 driver on the real hardware(Intel 82540EM
> >> PCI
> >> Gigabit Ethernet Controller), and find a potential bug:
> >> The target file is drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c,
> >> which is
> >> used to build e1000.ko.
> >> 
> >> (1) In the normal process, netif_napi_add is called in e1000_probe,
> >> but
> >> netif_napi_del is not called in e1000_remove. However, many other
> >> ethernet
> >> card drivers call them in pairs, even in the error handling paths,
> >> such as
> >> r8169 and igb.
> >> 
> >> Meanwhile, I also write the patch to fix the bug. I have run the patch
> >> on
> >> the hardware, it can work normally and fix the above bug.
> >
> >Was this a bug you actually saw?  Or a theoretical bug based on code
> >review?
> >
> >I do not mind adding this to my queue so that we can review and test the
> >patch, although this will cause a fair amount of regression testing.
> 
> 



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)