netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] e1000e: Increase iteration on polling MDIC ready bit

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]

Message-ID: <20200924195719.GF3821492@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:57:19 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
Cc:     jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS" 
        <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] e1000e: Increase iteration on polling MDIC ready bit

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:45:42AM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> We are seeing the following error after S3 resume:
> [  704.746874] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: Setting page 0x6020
> [  704.844232] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: MDI Write did not complete
> [  704.902817] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: Setting page 0x6020
> [  704.903075] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: reading PHY page 769 (or 0x6020 shifted) reg 0x17
> [  704.903281] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: Setting page 0x6020
> [  704.903486] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: writing PHY page 769 (or 0x6020 shifted) reg 0x17
> [  704.943155] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: MDI Error
> ...
> [  705.108161] e1000e 0000:00:1f.6 eno1: Hardware Error
> 
> As Andrew Lunn pointed out, MDIO has nothing to do with phy, and indeed
> increase polling iteration can resolve the issue.
> 
> The root cause is quite likely Intel ME, since it's a blackbox to the
> kernel so the only approach we can take is to be patient and wait
> longer.

Please could you explain how you see Intel ME being responsible for
this. I'm not convinced.

      Andrew