netdev - RE: [PATCH] e1000e: Relax condition to trigger reset for ME workaround

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 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:   Thu, 21 May 2020 07:56:12 +0000
From:   "Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
To:     Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@...hiba.co.jp>,
        "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
CC:     "daniel.sangorrin@...hiba.co.jp" <daniel.sangorrin@...hiba.co.jp>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] e1000e: Relax condition to trigger reset for ME
 workaround

> From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org <netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org> On
> Behalf Of Punit Agrawal
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 9:31 PM
> To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> Cc: daniel.sangorrin@...hiba.co.jp; Punit Agrawal
> <punit1.agrawal@...hiba.co.jp>; Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>; David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>;
> intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] e1000e: Relax condition to trigger reset for ME workaround
> 
> It's an error if the value of the RX/TX tail descriptor does not match
> what was written. The error condition is true regardless the duration
> of the interference from ME. But the driver only performs the reset if
> E1000_ICH_FWSM_PCIM2PCI_COUNT (2000) iterations of 50us delay have
> transpired. The extra condition can lead to inconsistency between the
> state of hardware as expected by the driver.
> 
> Fix this by dropping the check for number of delay iterations.
> 
> While at it, also make __ew32_prepare() static as it's not used
> anywhere else.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@...hiba.co.jp>
> Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> ---
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> If there are no further comments please consider merging the patch.
> 
> Also, should it be marked for backport to stable?
> 
> Thanks,
> Punit
> 
> RFC[0] -> v1:
> * Dropped return value for __ew32_prepare() as it's not used
> * Made __ew32_prepare() static
> * Added tags
> 
> [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/12/20
> 
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/e1000.h  |  1 -
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 12 +++++-------
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>