From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 12 02:44:45 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70079182; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:44:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from seanwbruno@gmail.com) Received: from mail-da0-f42.google.com (mail-da0-f42.google.com [209.85.210.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357EBD87; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-da0-f42.google.com with SMTP id z17so3019613dal.1 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:44:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references :content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MqHqLNiuLKLdr4cU4Zu1Wwj/PT60ettYviID0Iz/2fY=; b=rFUXWbLhPZ7Iwakvcop/NKL5j+1jgOUhfXWn0EPRU+/x4zrBTvhNLhmblksJhC1FQH qcufWcg17plItZv3kx3isGMXju6PVDsVPP5aNhknUJmFd6cFBYdmV+c/0UVEq+U6kJVP RxwZj0Qtii3gOryT11YJaS1KBykJkCE8FIsOzUJoYhs9T95phrL7PRdXhYTeRXziBbWm lp+GKU8MNRq9fYV9Bzf+20uU01WX2TVNsXpMInKKLsRXnmVnIt8QJrzlJMU2XJEcLk4/ JjvY/f81x584neo0zNtP4DvhfrPu+OTss1dnGWRPdjQ54GqjSsD9aY5DStWCtLW9r3ru lQQg== X-Received: by 10.66.52.1 with SMTP id p1mr33477976pao.22.1360637084524; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.210] (c-71-202-40-63.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [71.202.40.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bi2sm71011779pab.18.2013.02.11.18.44.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:44:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Intel 82574 issue reported on Slashdot From: Sean Bruno To: Jack Vogel In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:44:41 -0800 Message-ID: <1360637081.6605.4.camel@powernoodle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: FreeBSD stable , "Pieper, Jeffrey E" , FreeBSD Net , "Hearn, James R" , "Vogel, Jack" , "Ronciak, John" , FreeBSD Current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: sbruno@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:44:45 -0000 On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 10:16 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote: > For those that may have run across the story on Slashdot about this NIC, > here is our statement: > > Recently there were a few stories published, based on a blog post by an > end-user, suggesting specific network packets may cause the Intel® 82574L > Gigabit Ethernet Controller to become unresponsive until corrected by a > full platform power cycle. > > Intel was made aware of this issue in September 2012 by the blogs author. > Intel worked with the author as well as the original motherboard > manufacturer to investigate and determine root cause. Intel root caused the > issue to the specific vendor’s mother board design where an incorrect > EEPROM image was programmed during manufacturing. We communicated the > findings and recommended corrections to the motherboard manufacturer. > > It is Intel’s belief that this is an implementation issue isolated to a > specific manufacturer, not a design problem with the Intel 82574L Gigabit > Ethernet controller. Intel has not observed this issue with any > implementations which follow Intel’s published design guidelines. Intel > recommends contacting your motherboard manufacturer if you have continued > concerns or questions whether your products are impacted. > Here is the link: > > http://communities.intel.com/community/wired/blog/2013/02/07/intel-82574l-gigabit-ethernet-controller-statement > > Any questions or concerns may be sent to me. > > Cheers, > > Jack Thanks for the info. I'm sure there were some *interesting* debugging sessions during this. Sean