netdev - Re: [PATCH net] r8169: fix powering up RTL8168h

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

Message-Id: <20180508.225556.923247713833572030.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 08 May 2018 22:55:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     hkallweit1@...il.com
Cc:     nic_swsd@...ltek.com, ojab@...b.ru, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] r8169: fix powering up RTL8168h

From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 21:11:21 +0200

> Since commit a92a08499b1f "r8169: improve runtime pm in general and
> suspend unused ports" interfaces w/o link are runtime-suspended after
> 10s. On systems where drivers take longer to load this can lead to the
> situation that the interface is runtime-suspended already when it's
> initially brought up.
> This shouldn't be a problem because rtl_open() resumes MAC/PHY.
> However with at least one chip version the interface doesn't properly
> come up, as reported here:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199549
> 
> The vendor driver uses a delay to give certain chip versions some
> time to resume before starting the PHY configuration. So let's do
> the same. I don't know which chip versions may be affected,
> therefore apply this delay always.
> 
> This patch was reported to fix the issue for RTL8168h.
> I was able to reproduce the issue on an Asus H310I-Plus which also
> uses a RTL8168h. Also in my case the patch fixed the issue.
> 
> Reported-by: Slava Kardakov <ojab@...b.ru>
> Tested-by: Slava Kardakov <ojab@...b.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>

Applied and queued up for -stable.

> This patch will not apply to net-next as it conflicts with other
> changes which have been done in the meantime. So I'll send a
> separate patch for net-next.

That's fine, I'll deal with it when I next merge net into net-next.

Sending another copy of this patch for net-next is not the way to deal
with this.  Just make me aware of the impending complict and I will
resolve it when I see it.

Thanks.