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: <1442578664.97487.41.camel@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:17:44 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4/2] 8139cp: Do not re-enable RX interrupts in
 cp_tx_timeout()

If an RX interrupt was already received but NAPI has not yet run when
the RX timeout happens, we end up in cp_tx_timeout() with RX interrupts
already disabled. Blindly re-enabling them will cause an IRQ storm.

This is somewhat less painful than it was a few minutes ago before I
fixed the return value from cp_interrupt(), but still suboptimal.

Unconditionally leave RX interrupts disabled after the reset, and
schedule NAPI to check the receive ring and re-enable them.

Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>
---
It might seem a little odd to deliberately schedule NAPI when we know
there's going to be nothing there since we just cleared the rings.

But given that we only get here if the hardware is playing silly
buggers, I don't much like the idea of preserving the existing IntrMask
that we read from the hardware. And there's no pretty way of
determining whether NAPI is already scheduled. So just ensuring that
it *is* scheduled seems simplest. It's not like we're going to
care about the performance implications of one fruitless poll when
we've just suffered a TX timeout and reset the hardware.

In future I think I might want to fix cp_tx_timeout() to *only* reset
the TX ring anyway. Especially as I'm entirely unsure about its locking
w.r.t. cp_rx_poll()... what prevents cp_rx_poll() from running while
we're in the middle of screwing around with the RX rings?

 drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/8139cp.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/8139cp.c
b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/8139cp.c
index f1054ad..d12fc50 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/8139cp.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/8139cp.c
@@ -1269,9 +1269,10 @@ static void cp_tx_timeout(struct net_device
*dev)
 	rc = cp_init_rings(cp);
 	cp_start_hw(cp);
 	__cp_set_rx_mode(dev);
-	cp_enable_irq(cp);
+	cpw16_f(IntrMask, cp_norx_intr_mask);
 
 	netif_wake_queue(dev);
+	napi_schedule_irqoff(&cp->napi);
 
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cp->lock, flags);
 }
-- 
2.4.3

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com                              Intel Corporation


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5691 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ