netdev - Re: [PATCH net] Revert "r8169: don't try to disable interrupts if NAPI is, scheduled already"

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: <20240520195442.GC764145@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 20:54:42 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ken Milmore <ken.milmore@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Revert "r8169: don't try to disable interrupts if
 NAPI is, scheduled already"

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 03:50:11PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 15.05.2024 08:18, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> > This reverts commit 7274c4147afbf46f45b8501edbdad6da8cd013b9.
> > 
> > Ken reported that RTL8125b can lock up if gro_flush_timeout has the
> > default value of 20000 and napi_defer_hard_irqs is set to 0.
> > In this scenario device interrupts aren't disabled, what seems to
> > trigger some silicon bug under heavy load. I was able to reproduce this
> > behavior on RTL8168h. Fix this by reverting 7274c4147afb.
> > 
> > Fixes: 7274c4147afb ("r8169: don't try to disable interrupts if NAPI is scheduled already")
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Reported-by: Ken Milmore <ken.milmore@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> > ---
> 
> This patch was mistakenly set to "changes requested".
> The replies from Ken provide additional details on how interrupt mask
> and status register behave on these chips. However the patch itself
> is correct and should be applied.

I guess someone hit the wrong button by mistake.
Let's see if this puts things back on track.

pw-bot: under-review