netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: bcmgenet: Return not supported if we don't have a WoL IRQ

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]

Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:20:45 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>,
        Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: bcmgenet: Return not supported if we don't have a
 WoL IRQ



On 3/2/2022 10:02 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:48:18 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> Understood and I won't require you or me to complete this investigating
>>> before fixing the regression, this is just so we understand where it
>>> stemmed from and possibly fix the IRQ layer if need be. Given what I
>>> just wrote, do you think you can sprinkle debug prints throughout the
>>> kernel to figure out whether enable_irq_wake() somehow messes up the
>>> interrupt descriptor of interrupt and test that theory? We can do that
>>> offline if you want.
>>
>> Let me mark v2 as Deferred for now, then. I'm not really sure if that's
>> what's intended but we have 3 weeks or so until 5.17 is cut so we can
>> afford a few days of investigating.
> 
> I think the "few days of investigating" have now run out :(
> How should we proceed?

I have not had a chance to provide Peter with the debug patch I wanted 
him to apply, but your patch seemed better in that regard because if we 
don't have a Wake-on-LAN interrupt line, we should not mark the device 
as wake-up capable to begin with. Peter, could you try Jakub's patch and 
confirm that it works equally well as yours?

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220223144818.2f9ce725@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com/
-- 
Florian