netdev - RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <309B89C4C689E141A5FF6A0C5FB2118B81F6579E@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 07:33:01 +0000
From:	"Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
To:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
	"Avargil, Raanan" <raanan.avargil@...el.com>
CC:	"Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out
 systim	sanitization

> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@...ts.osuosl.org] On
> Behalf Of Jarod Wilson
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 6:32 PM
> To: Avargil, Raanan <raanan.avargil@...el.com>
> Cc: Hall, Christopher S <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out
> systim sanitization
> 
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:01:55AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:09:13PM +0000, Avargil, Raanan wrote:
> > >> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have
> occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the
> sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per suggestion
> from Jesse Brandeburg.
> > >>
> > >> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier
> than simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as
> needed.
> > >> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that
> could/should be converted similarly.
> > >
> > > Looks ok to me.
> > > Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter
> (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)?
> > > This counter is set to 50.
> > > Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0)
> and see what happens?
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't have direct access to the affected hardware myself,
> > so I'd have to prep a test build, hand it off to someone and play relay. I
> > could do that, but it'd have some lag and possible multiple round-trips...
> > Anyone inside Intel have hardware handy to test on? :p
> 
> Was tied up with other work the middle of last week, then on vacation for
> a bit. There was some testing feedback provided from someone at neither
> Red Hat or Intel, but I'm not sure where it leaves us right now. What
> needs to happen next?

Probably nothing else needs to be done on your end.  I was out for the last week and a half and am now running the patches through a series of regression test covering a fair number of the different e1000e parts.  I will also try to duplicate Tim Woodford' success on a NUC with an i218 in my lab.  Assuming nothing jumps out at me I'll probably give it a tested-by later this week so that Jeff can push it on up.

> 
> --
> Jarod Wilson
> jarod@...hat.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-wired-lan mailing list
> Intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
> http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan

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