netdev - Re: [next-queue PATCH v2 0/2] Address IRQ related crash seen due to io_perm

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: <1572360187.12281.4.camel@oc5348122405>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 09:43:07 -0500
From:   "David Z. Dai" <zdai@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, zdai@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [next-queue PATCH v2 0/2] Address IRQ related crash seen due
 to io_perm_failure

On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 08:34 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> David Dai had submitted a patch[1] to address a reported issue with e1000e
> calling pci_disable_msi without first freeing the interrupts. Looking over
> the issue it seems the problem was the fact that e1000e_down was being
> called in e1000_io_error_detected without calling e1000_free_irq, and this
> was resulting in e1000e_close skipping over the call to e1000e_down and
> e1000_free_irq.
> 
> The use of the __E1000_DOWN flag for the close test seems to have come from
> the runtime power management changes that were made some time ago. From
> what I can tell in the close path we should be disabling runtime power
> management via a call to pm_runtime_get_sync. As such we can remove the
> test for the __E1000_DOWN bit. However in comparing this with other drivers
> we do need to avoid freeing the IRQs more than once. So in order to address
> that I have copied the approach taken in igb and taken it a bit further so
> that we will always detach the interface and if the interface is up we will
> bring it down and free the IRQs. In addition we are able to reuse some of
> the power management code so I have taken the opportunity to merge those
> bits.
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1570121672-12172-1-git-send-email-zdai@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
> 
> v2: Move e1000e_pm_thaw out of CONFIG_PM region to fix build issue on Sparc64
> 
> ---
> 
> Alexander Duyck (2):
>       e1000e: Use rtnl_lock to prevent race conditions between net and pci/pm
>       e1000e: Drop unnecessary __E1000_DOWN bit twiddling
> 
> 
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c |   75 +++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> 
I am not familiar with the process. Don't mean to push you in any way.
Just want to check if these 2 v2 patches will be accepted by upstream?
or any thing else needs to be done to finish the process? 

Thanks! - David