netdev - Re: Regression caused by commit 7bb05b85bc2d ("r8169: don't use MSI-X on RTL8106e")

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: <CAPpJ_ecuPysq2SE7=X7ip-3M=4yOcwuu6m_2292WgYA8j6gqjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:56:08 +0800
From:   Jian-Hong Pan <jian-hong@...lessm.com>
To:     Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>
Subject: Re: Regression caused by commit 7bb05b85bc2d ("r8169: don't use MSI-X
 on RTL8106e")

2018-09-12 11:42 GMT+08:00 Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>:
> Hi Jian-Hong,
>
> There's a Dell machine with RTL8106e stops to work after S3 since the commit
> introduced.
> So I am wondering if it's possible to revert the commit and use
> DMI/subsystem id based quirk table?
>
> It's because of commit bc976233a872 ("genirq/msi, x86/vector: Prevent
> reservation mode for non maskable MSI") cleared the reservation mode, and I
> can see this after S3:
>
> [   94.872838] do_IRQ: 3.33 No irq handler for vector
>
> If the device uses MSI-X instead of MSI, the issue doesn't happen because of
> reservation mode.

Interesting!  Opposite symptom!
Could you help try the patch
https://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=153629858601668&w=4 with and without
reverting the commit?

If the patch does not work, another suggestion: You can try falling
back to only PCI_IRQ_LEGACY.

Regards,
Jian-Hong Pan

>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Is it something should be handled by x86 BIOS? Because I don't see this
> issue when I use Suspend-to-Idle, which doesn't use BIOS to do suspend.
>
> Kai-Heng
>