Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 32 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 10624 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

UTM 9.204 Intel E1000e NIC crash

ECKEROTH
Just upgraded to 9.204 and I still have Intel E1000e NIC crashs. PLEAZE SOPHOS - fix this now asap...

After manuel set "ethtool -K eth1 gso off gro off" normal operation can be obtained, but this it gone when rebooting [:@] 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.930212] next_to_watch 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.930212] jiffies 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.930212] next_to_watch.status 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.930212] MAC Status 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.930212] PHY Status 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.930212] PHY 1000BASE-T Status 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.930212] PHY Extended Status 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.930212] PCI Status 

2014:07:11-20:28:20 fw kernel: [ 6621.937388] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Reset adapter unexpectedly

2014:07:11-20:28:23 fw kernel: [ 6625.762700] e1000e: eth1 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Detected Hardware Unit Hang:

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] TDH 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] TDT 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] next_to_use 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] next_to_clean 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] buffer_info[next_to_clean]:

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] time_stamp 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] next_to_watch 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] jiffies 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] next_to_watch.status 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] MAC Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] PHY Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] PHY 1000BASE-T Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] PHY Extended Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:06 fw kernel: [ 6847.695940] PCI Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Detected Hardware Unit Hang:

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] TDH 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] TDT 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] next_to_use 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] next_to_clean 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] buffer_info[next_to_clean]:

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] time_stamp 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] next_to_watch 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] jiffies 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] next_to_watch.status 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] MAC Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] PHY Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] PHY 1000BASE-T Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] PHY Extended Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:08 fw kernel: [ 6849.693885] PCI Status 

2014:07:11-20:32:09 fw kernel: [ 6850.691975] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Reset adapter unexpectedly

2014:07:11-20:32:12 fw kernel: [ 6854.449265] e1000e: eth1 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Detected Hardware Unit Hang:

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] TDH 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] TDT 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] next_to_use 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] next_to_clean 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] buffer_info[next_to_clean]:

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] time_stamp 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] next_to_watch 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] jiffies 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] next_to_watch.status 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] MAC Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] PHY Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] PHY 1000BASE-T Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] PHY Extended Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:27 fw kernel: [ 6928.600113] PCI Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Detected Hardware Unit Hang:

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] TDH 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] TDT 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] next_to_use 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] next_to_clean 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] buffer_info[next_to_clean]:

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] time_stamp 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] next_to_watch 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] jiffies 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] next_to_watch.status 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] MAC Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] PHY Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] PHY 1000BASE-T Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] PHY Extended Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:29 fw kernel: [ 6930.598052] PCI Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Detected Hardware Unit Hang:

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] TDH 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] TDT 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] next_to_use 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] next_to_clean 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] buffer_info[next_to_clean]:

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] time_stamp 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] next_to_watch 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] jiffies 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] next_to_watch.status 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] MAC Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] PHY Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] PHY 1000BASE-T Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] PHY Extended Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:31 fw kernel: [ 6932.595992] PCI Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Detected Hardware Unit Hang:

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] TDH 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] TDT 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] next_to_use 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] next_to_clean 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] buffer_info[next_to_clean]:

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] time_stamp 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] next_to_watch 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] jiffies 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] next_to_watch.status 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] MAC Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] PHY Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] PHY 1000BASE-T Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] PHY Extended Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.593959] PCI Status 

2014:07:11-20:33:33 fw kernel: [ 6934.604903] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth1: Reset adapter unexpectedly

2014:07:11-20:33:36 fw kernel: [ 6938.414254] e1000e: eth1 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
  • 0
    Has anyone actually logged a ticket with sophos about this? It seems everyone is saying sophos should fix it, but how can they if no one has reported it through the correct channels?
  • 0
    YOu asked for updates..i gave them to you..[:)]  Hyper-v's issues aren't any different than vmware.  It depends on if you are only running hyper-v baremetal or part of a full windows install.  I do the latter and yes there can be risks but if Hyper-v is seutp properly It's very secure if proper management is used.
  • 0 in reply to RFCat_vk_01
    I also see a considerable risk of deploying another layer of security software in front of the UTM.


    In the case of VMware at least, I fail to see what extra layer of security software is present? (Maybe Windows does in HyperV?) And also what the attendant security risks are given the only ESXi layer between the UTM and the hardware is the vSwitch layer?

    From the testing I've done, there's no way a remote attacker can determine you're running a virtualized UTM excepting being inside the same broadcast domain. I've run fingerprinting tests against several virtualised guests (mix of Windows desktop, server & linux) and even with OS fingerprinting it's not possible to tell they're a vm.

    Outside of that they'd have to hack into the UTM to look at the box hardware config but if they've gotten that far, you've got bigger problems then someone trying to hack a vSwitch.
  • 0 in reply to TheDrew
    PLEAZE [H]

    Don't steal my subject about NIC crash, with talk about virtualization platforms etc. Start your own thread please.

    Damn, I miss the old times with stricts forum admins... [;)]

    // Martin
  • 0
    Has anyone actually logged a ticket with sophos about this? It seems everyone is saying sophos should fix it, but how can they if no one has reported it through the correct channels?
    Sophos is well aware and has been working with Intel for a very long time on it.
  • 0 in reply to Scott_Klassen
    Sophos is well aware and has been working with Intel for a very long time on it.


    Hi,

    I agree that they are aware of it, but I don't know why they keep closing tickets:
    https://community.sophos.com/products/unified-threat-management/astaroorg/f/81/t/65588
    https://community.sophos.com/products/unified-threat-management/astaroorg/f/81/t/65355

    Barry
  • 0 in reply to Scott_Klassen
    Sophos is well aware and has been working with Intel for a very long time on it.


    They don't show it though, so far all i have seen is a huge wall of silence and closed tickets.

    Back when i first notet the error i decided to stop using all the workarounds and delete/reinstall the FW with version 9.1 and then simply run a backup on the box. but this should not be nessesary.

    All i ask is that Sophos atleast comment on the issue, tell us they are working on it, so far, all they have done is closing tickets/and forum threads.
  • 0
    Well, official comment here is probably not forthcoming, as this is a user-to-user forum.  A few Sophos employees do participate here on occasion, but they do so on their own time.  For official response, you'll need to submit a support ticket.
  • 0 in reply to Scott_Klassen
    Well, official comment here is probably not forthcoming, as this is a user-to-user forum.  A few Sophos employees do participate here on occasion, but they do so on their own time.  For official response, you'll need to submit a support ticket.


    They don't nessesarily have to make a response here on the forum, there are many ways to let people now that they are aware of the bug and working on it, a good place could be the knowledge base..

    Back when Heartbleed was discoveret they did write an entry to the knowledge base about this. 

    But thanks for coloring it redthat this is a forum, but that doesen't really answer the question, nor help en any way.
  • 0 in reply to stealthmatt_01
    Has anyone actually logged a ticket with sophos about this? It seems everyone is saying sophos should fix it, but how can they if no one has reported it through the correct channels?

      
    This is the only, correct channel for home use licensees [;)]


    I contacted Sophos Support but they do not bother unless you have a support contract.