netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH] e1000e: Remove Other from EIAC.

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]

Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:31:05 +0900
From:   Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH] e1000e: Remove Other from EIAC.

On 2018/01/30 11:46, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com> wrote:
> > It was reported that emulated e1000e devices in vmware esxi 6.5 Build
> > 7526125 do not link up after commit 4aea7a5c5e94 ("e1000e: Avoid receiver
> > overrun interrupt bursts", v4.15-rc1). Some tracing shows that after
> > e1000e_trigger_lsc() is called, ICR reads out as 0x0 in e1000_msix_other()
> > on emulated e1000e devices. In comparison, on real e1000e 82574 hardware,
> > icr=0x80000004 (_INT_ASSERTED | _OTHER) in the same situation.
> >
> > Some experimentation showed that this flaw in vmware e1000e emulation can
> > be worked around by not setting Other in EIAC. This is how it was before
> > 16ecba59bc33 ("e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt", v4.5-rc1).
> >
> > Fixes: 4aea7a5c5e94 ("e1000e: Avoid receiver overrun interrupt bursts")
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
> > ---
> 
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> How would you feel about resubmitting this patch for net?
> 
> We have some issues that have come up and it would be useful to have
> this fixed in the kernel sooner rather than later. I would be okay
> with us applying it for now while we work on coming up with a more
> complete solution.

Ok, I've resent it in its original form. Once it's in mainline I'll
rebase the cleanups.