netdev - Re: WoL broken in r8169.c since kernel 4.19

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:28:13 +0100
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Marc Haber <mh+netdev@...schlus.de>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: WoL broken in r8169.c since kernel 4.19

On 28.01.2019 21:22, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 08:30:10AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 10:09:51PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> Yes. All you have to do after each "git bisect good/bad" is build again,
>>> test, and make current build as good or bad.
>>
>> Will report back if I get any results. When I bisected last time, I
>> ended up with a kernel that didn't even boot, but with 5 steps this is
>> probably manageable. Will take most of the week though.
> 
> [3/4995]mh@fan:~/linux/git/linux ((6fcf9b1d4d6c...) *%|BISECTING) $ git bislog
> git bisect start 'drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c'
> # good: [4ff36466281428734791d3cc6331b8cca7c76019] r8169: replace get_protocol with vlan_get_protocol
> git bisect good 4ff36466281428734791d3cc6331b8cca7c76019
> # bad: [649f0837a8cc2b39329f2de00fa0d04b029291c5] r8169: fix broken Wake-on-LAN from S5 (poweroff)
> git bisect bad 649f0837a8cc2b39329f2de00fa0d04b029291c5
> # bad: [098b01ad9837b4d4d0022f407300f069a999e55a] r8169: don't include asm headers directly
> git bisect bad 098b01ad9837b4d4d0022f407300f069a999e55a
> [4/4996]mh@fan:~/linux/git/linux ((6fcf9b1d4d6c...) *%|BISECTING) $ 
> 
> The kernel that I now have is 6fcf9b1d4d6cd38202247de5c0ac7d85c4483abb and
> that one throws oopses on booting and won't suspend at all.
> 
> Can I continue from here while still making sense?
> 
Not w/o knowing whether this version is good or bad.

Because we're interested in file r8169.c only, you could test r8169.c from the
oops-ing kernel on top of a working kernel version.

> Greetings
> Marc
> 
Heiner