Potentially hardware damaging bug in kernel 2.6.27

Zenwalk addict · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:06 am

Seems to me like a very dangerous or critical http://jonathancarter.co.za/potentially ... ernel-2627

austinnt · **Joined:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:39 pm **Posts:** 29

And that's why I don't use Ubuntu

Zenwalk addict · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:17 am

Well i though the same for all, since ubuntu isnt changing any kernel sources or atleast not developing any modules. So it holds the same for all distros right?

I did searched the kernel trap, theres no report of such...

gmg · **Joined:** Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:38 am **Posts:** 4604

i think, isn't kernel problem:

https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=44192

Zenwalk addict · **Posted:** Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:18 am

Yes its common for all linux distros who ever using .27 kernel. Even Linus said this bug exists in kernel trap. Here: http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/2.6.27-rc8_ ... e_Last_One

Sigg3.net · **Posted:** Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:54 am

And for those of us who don't know what these guys are talking about:

Quote:

Components supported by the e1000e module:

1. Intel / 82566DC Gigabit Network Connection [Ethernet controller] (4.4 x 14)
2. Intel / 82801I (ICH9 Family) Gigabit Ethernet Controller [Ethernet controller] (3.0 x 5)
3. Intel / 82566DM-2 Gigabit Network Connection [Ethernet controller] (4.3 x 3)
4. Dell (by Intel) / 82801I (ICH9 Family) Gigabit Ethernet Controller [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 2)
5. Hewlett-Packard (by Intel) / 82566DM-2 Gigabit Network Connection [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 1)
6. Super Micro Computer (by Intel) / 80003ES2LAN Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper) [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 3)
7. Dell (by Intel) / 82562V-2 10/100 Network Connection [Ethernet controller] (4.0 x 2)
8. Foxconn International (by Intel) / 82566DM Gigabit Network Connection [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 1)
9. Lenovo (by Intel) / Lenovo Thinkpad T61 [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 10)
10. Hewlett-Packard (by Intel) / 82566MM Gigabit Network Connection [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 2)
11. Toshiba America Info Systems (by Intel) / 82573L Gigabit Ethernet Controller [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 5)
12. Acer [ALI] (by Intel) / 82566MM Gigabit Network Connection [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 1)
13. Intel / 82566DC Gigabit Network Connection [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 1)
14. Intel / 82573L Gigabit Ethernet Controller [Ethernet controller] (5.0 x 4)

source: HW4L the e1000e module

Quote:

The e1000e driver, instead, supports PCI-Express adapters. It is a newer driver which is seen as being better written and easier to maintain. It is intended that all new hardware will be supported by this driver, and that, in particular, all PCI-Express hardware will use it. The only problem is that a few PCI-Express chipsets were added to the older e1000 driver before this policy was adopted. Since the newer driver also supports those chipsets, there are two drivers (with two completely different bodies of code) supporting the same hardware. The e1000 maintainers would like to end this duplication and put the e1000 driver into a stable maintenance mode.

source: e1000 v e1000e

And notably:

Quote:

But, if you're living on the bleeding edge of technology and want a run a beta Linux that's using the 2.6.27 kernel, do not, do not run until you're sure your machine doesn't use the Intel ICH8 and ICH9 chipsets, with the 82566 and 82567 Ethernet chipsets. If you do, you're very likely to fry your Ethernet's firmware and you can say bye-bye to your network connection

source: When Linux goes bad: the ethernet e100e bug

Zenwalk addict · **Posted:** Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:57 pm

How can the kernel team would do such a mistake? And release it...I think, even the developer did lost his nic card due to this bug. There has be some way, you could test on h/w very safely. Some kinda virtual simulators or some thing.

Zenwalk addict · **Posted:** Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:03 pm

Seems like, Intel has released a patch for this bug. They say its much safer now by making the h.w read only.

Read here: http://fasmz.org/~pterjan/blog/?date=20081002#p01
but on the contrary and usually with Linus style, see what he has to say on this bug: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/29/368

gmg · **Joined:** Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:38 am **Posts:** 4604

it is in the style of Linus, very good.

Zenwalk addict · **Posted:** Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:49 pm

I always appreciate his bold and dareness to say things which is wrong.
Now gotta see, how Intel responds to it.

Potentially hardware damaging bug in kernel 2.6.27

Who is online