Bug 187112 - CNet PRO200WL PCI Fast Ethernet card improperly configured
CNet PRO200WL PCI Fast Ethernet card improperly configured
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Kernel Maintainer List
Brian Brock
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-03-28 11:04 EST by Jeff Spirko
Modified: 2008-05-06 11:41 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-05-06 11:41:08 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jeff Spirko 2006-03-28 11:04:09 EST
Description of problem:

On FC5 fresh install, presence of the CNet PRO200WL PCI Fast Ethernet card
triggers both the tulip and dmfe kernel modules and networking doesn't work. 
The IP address gets set correctly by DHCP but network connections (including
host lookups) don't work.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install CNet PRO200WL network card.
2. Install Fedora Linux Core 5.
3. Boot and attempt any network connection.
Actual results:
Failed hostname lookups.

Expected results:
Successful connections.

Additional info:

Linux (via lspci) reports this card as "Davicom Semiconductor, Inc. 21x4x
DEC-Tulip compatible 10/100 Ethernet (rev 31)"

Net searches led to setting pci=noacpi on the grub kernel line, which doesn't
seem to help (or hurt in the end).

To make it work from fresh install and boot (and find out if this is your problem):
  lsmod       # See if both dmfe and tulip are loaded
  /etc/init.d/network stop
  rmmod dmfe
  rmmod tulip
  modprobe dmfe
  /etc/init.d/network start
Adding "blacklist=tulip" and "alias eth0 dmfe" to /etc/modprobe.conf keeps the
tulip driver from getting loaded and the system works after reboots.

The solution (minus the blacklist) came from:
Comment 1 Robert K. Moniot 2006-04-28 10:28:14 EDT
I had the same problem on an upgrade from FC4.  To add to the list of symptoms:
during boot the network initialization acts as if it succeeds, but
"/sbin/ifconfig eth0" shows RX packets:nonzero but always TX packets:0.
On my system the file /etc/modprobe.conf already contained the line "alias eth0
dmfe".  Adding the line "blacklist tulip" (no equals sign) fixed the problem.
Thank you for finding this solution.
Comment 2 Dave Jones 2006-10-16 17:56:10 EDT
A new kernel update has been released (Version: 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5)
based upon a new upstream kernel release.

Please retest against this new kernel, as a large number of patches
go into each upstream release, possibly including changes that
may address this problem.

This bug has been placed in NEEDINFO state.
Due to the large volume of inactive bugs in bugzilla, if this bug is
still in this state in two weeks time, it will be closed.

Should this bug still be relevant after this period, the reporter
can reopen the bug at any time. Any other users on the Cc: list
of this bug can request that the bug be reopened by adding a
comment to the bug.

In the last few updates, some users upgrading from FC4->FC5
have reported that installing a kernel update has left their
systems unbootable. If you have been affected by this problem
please check you only have one version of device-mapper & lvm2
installed.  See bug 207474 for further details.

If this bug is a problem preventing you from installing the
release this version is filed against, please see bug 169613.

If this bug has been fixed, but you are now experiencing a different
problem, please file a separate bug for the new problem.

Thank you.
Comment 3 Robert K. Moniot 2006-10-24 20:54:52 EDT
No, the problem has not gone away as of the 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5 kernel.  If the
line "blacklist tulip" is removed from /etc/modprobe.conf, the symptoms are the
same as I reported on 2006-04-28 10:28 EST.
Comment 4 petrosyan 2008-03-11 01:00:45 EDT
Fedora Core 5 is no longer maintained. Is this bug still present in Fedora 7 or
Fedora 8?
Comment 5 Robert K. Moniot 2008-03-11 09:44:41 EDT
We no longer have a machine with this ethernet interface, so I cannot tell
whether the bug is still present.  Sorry.
Comment 6 Bug Zapper 2008-04-03 22:19:39 EDT
Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're
sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted
on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to
make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks.

If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6,
please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly
encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to
refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs
for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them.

If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days
from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in
the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If
you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting
the change.

Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.

The process we are following is outlined here:

We will be following the process here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this
doesn't happen again.

And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things
better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Comment 7 Bug Zapper 2008-05-06 11:41:06 EDT
This bug is open for a Fedora version that is no longer maintained and
will not be fixed by Fedora. Therefore we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen thus bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.