[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjecte1000e: can TIMINCA register be zero?

I have a user report of division by zero in e1000e_cyclecounter_read+0xd9/0x100
at modprobe:

[<ffffffff810b3c24>] timecounter_init+0x24/0x40
[<ffffffffa048db34>] e1000e_config_hwtstamp+0x1c4/0x2e0 [e1000e]
[<ffffffffa048ee55>] e1000e_reset+0x1c5/0x7a0 [e1000e]
[<ffffffffa0496228>] e1000_probe+0xa2f/0xc7e [e1000e]
[<ffffffff812befc7>] local_pci_probe+0x17/0x20
[<ffffffff812c01b1>] pci_device_probe+0x101/0x120
[<ffffffff81380c22>] ? driver_sysfs_add+0x62/0x90
[<ffffffff81380eca>] driver_probe_device+0xaa/0x3a0
[<ffffffff8138126b>] __driver_attach+0xab/0xb0
[<ffffffff813811c0>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0xb0
[<ffffffff813800b4>] bus_for_each_dev+0x64/0x90
[<ffffffff81380b5e>] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
[<ffffffff8137f8c8>] bus_add_driver+0x1e8/0x2b0
[<ffffffff8138147f>] driver_register+0x5f/0xe0
[<ffffffff812c0416>] __pci_register_driver+0x56/0xd0
[<ffffffffa04ad000>] ? e1000_init_module+0x0/0x43 [e1000e]
[<ffffffffa04ad041>] e1000_init_module+0x41/0x43 [e1000e]
[<ffffffff810020d0>] do_one_initcall+0xc0/0x280
[<ffffffff810c85d1>] sys_init_module+0xe1/0x250
[<ffffffff8100b0d2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

User says it happens on hotplug.

On code inspection, this is clearly a case of

/* errata for 82574/82583 possible bad bits read from SYSTIMH/L
* check to see that the time is incrementing at a reasonable
* rate and is a multiple of incvalue
==> incvalue = er32(TIMINCA) & E1000_TIMINCA_INCVALUE_MASK;
for (i = 0; i < E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREADS; i++) {
/* latch SYSTIMH on read of SYSTIML */
systim_next = (cycle_t)er32(SYSTIML);
systim_next |= (cycle_t)er32(SYSTIMH) << 32;

time_delta = systim_next - systim;
temp = time_delta;
====> rem = do_div(temp, incvalue);

systim = systim_next;

if ((time_delta < E1000_82574_SYSTIM_EPSILON) &&
(rem == 0))

Knowing nothing about e1000e, I can easily slap on a quick fix here:

rem = incvalue ? do_div(temp, incvalue) : (time_delta != 0);

However, I would like to alert you guys that this was seen.

Would zero counter increment in er32(TIMINCA) cause problems elsewhere?
In 1000e_config_hwtstamp(), it is initialized before timecounter_init():

/* Get and set the System Time Register SYSTIM base frequency */
ret_val = e1000e_get_base_timinca(adapter, &regval);
if (ret_val)
return ret_val;
==> ew32(TIMINCA, regval);

/* reset the ns time counter */
==> timecounter_init(&adapter->tc, &adapter->cc,

By code inspection, e1000e_get_base_timinca() either returns -EINVAL
and we don't do timecounter_init() and the division/0 location
is not reached, or e1000e_get_base_timinca(&regval) sets
nonzero regval. Then we set TIMINCA to this nonzero value.

Isn't it fishy that then timecounter_init() -> e1000e_cyclecounter_read()
-> er32(TIMINCA) sees zero there?

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-19 13:01    [W:0.048 / U:4.840 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site