From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Kirsher Subject: Re: Re:Re: [linux-nics] [PATCH] e1000 in linux-3.18.0: a potential bug Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 04:49:31 -0800 Message-ID: <1419079771.2461.94.camel@jtkirshe-mobl.home> References: <000d01d01c29$a9edb870$fdc92950$@163.com> <1419071660.2461.85.camel@jtkirshe-mobl.home> <79ea17da.119c.14a67bcadd1.Coremail.baijiaju1990@163.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ifvNCdSrqYgpL0nzLfhx" Cc: netdev , e1000-devel To: =?UTF-8?Q?=E7=99=BD=E5=AE=B6=E9=A9=B9?= Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:63800 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752812AbaLTMtb (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:49:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <79ea17da.119c.14a67bcadd1.Coremail.baijiaju1990@163.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-ifvNCdSrqYgpL0nzLfhx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 20:47 +0800, =E7=99=BD=E5=AE=B6=E9=A9=B9 wrote: > Thanks for the reply! > I run the driver normally, and monitor all function calls in runtime, > and then find this violation.=20 Adding netdev and e1000-devel back onto the CC since Jia-Ju Bai removed them in his reply... >=20 > At 2014-12-20 18:34:20,"Jeff Kirsher" wrote= : > >On Sat, 2014-12-20 at 15:50 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > >> I have actually tested e1000 driver on the real hardware(Intel 82540EM > >> PCI > >> Gigabit Ethernet Controller), and find a potential bug: > >> The target file is drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_main.c, > >> which is > >> used to build e1000.ko. > >>=20 > >> (1) In the normal process, netif_napi_add is called in e1000_probe, > >> but > >> netif_napi_del is not called in e1000_remove. However, many other > >> ethernet > >> card drivers call them in pairs, even in the error handling paths, > >> such as > >> r8169 and igb. > >>=20 > >> Meanwhile, I also write the patch to fix the bug. I have run the patch > >> on > >> the hardware, it can work normally and fix the above bug. > > > >Was this a bug you actually saw? Or a theoretical bug based on code > >review? > > > >I do not mind adding this to my queue so that we can review and test the > >patch, although this will cause a fair amount of regression testing. >=20 >=20 --=-ifvNCdSrqYgpL0nzLfhx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCgAGBQJUlXBbAAoJEOVv75VaS+3O93AP/RWgNuM1ENoVciAjZ3IjsExd fkZ1Z1ZQq4vdKDp96Q7YuF1TuOQj0ieXZ9QkLyZktN5ixFK4J7/Z3T8OHvdcj8xE F+Gr45Yrk/Tuq1bhRp4s4484NqtAK022/IxQedK5qcnj7JUt22ZPYdntvs/66/VM +4DiGyjdXFitra9ZxQHdHVlwOlvnKBWzFYnlu9iH1qFVxWKIxVHllbAKh0EHG67S cISszxylSotnUGGt+JPOoJ4YRIi9LUCjNRWR2qtkn7dtEKBJ3eziQZRInDFw9rRx h5zeJzR4eyVbQiAyd+SWY7dEcmESUMBO7DkVCxwqul9WJ6rkriVWxIGLyjgtYCGD KFSs0nzdavqeHAKphNO6cxv4iMySXWYOlbOn60QkvAsxqGlhYOiSg8ZawW1S7RVJ tq/+EfKq6AnOiUHQBqKdoPY2hAGJedoV6NZF9juEUqoBUKPKj96lc4ORk7nkbCIN qpkE45litDFmeJXHgcDxTrUHnXqS7LlXtGer+QEdQ0Wpisw2h7jBPnPbYUeqTzvv bPAqtw2sh0jqPlqk4ndFTrCK0bf7qArlwlP0yhboOgY+t1FiWaZenpawlyfhOZm/ 39ZIdt9R6e7HpMqVoqzczddxutDcsyea3tBaKKhi2uAlKhV4RlS4Hzd9FblkqE7q TeON9AeHCmEJg1UAP9On =TmN6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ifvNCdSrqYgpL0nzLfhx--