From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754569AbaHFWdA (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 18:33:00 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:54601 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754437AbaHFWc6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 18:32:58 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,814,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="572771020" From: "Keller, Jacob E" To: "Fujinaka, Todd" CC: "hannes@stressinduktion.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "mathias.koehrer@etas.com" Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] PROBLEM: [x86] Running ptpd2 using an Intel 82572EI (e1000e) leads to a kernel oops (3.12.26) Thread-Topic: [E1000-devel] PROBLEM: [x86] Running ptpd2 using an Intel 82572EI (e1000e) leads to a kernel oops (3.12.26) Thread-Index: Ac+v3yzc3cSLCNWNSz2wcfBA1YE8+gBtGo2AAAzknIAADnhHAA== Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:32:56 +0000 Message-ID: <1407364376.29652.3.camel@jekeller-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <50f83e65cecd4882b22887858bfdf484@FE-MBX1012.de.bosch.com> <1407317367.1360819.149688237.188FBBFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9B4A1B1917080E46B64F07F2989DADD6533AC68E@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <9B4A1B1917080E46B64F07F2989DADD6533AC68E@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [134.134.173.156] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <228CE2C8ED20CF40977538E9073499D2@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id s76MX5El014282 On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 15:38 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: > Looking at your patches on netdev, it appears that there are flags set in the skb that should never be set for the 82572EI as that part doesn't have hardware timestamping. This points to a bug in the ptpd code. > > Todd Fujinaka > Software Application Engineer > Networking Division (ND) > Intel Corporation > todd.fujinaka@intel.com > (503) 712-4565 Surely we can bail here instead of generating a kernel oops? Even though ptpd may be incorrect here, we still shouldn't do this. I think this may be a bug in the set_ts_config possibly as well (since it shouldn't be able to set the hardware timestamp flags for the 82572EI Thanks, Jake {.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I