linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13: IO APIC breakage on HP nx6325

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:59:01 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi-suse@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13: IO APIC breakage on HP nx6325

On Sunday, 29 of June 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...ux-mips.org> wrote:
> 
> >  You may argue this is a regression, but this is simply the cost paid 
> > for progress -- the kernel stays within the spec as defined both by 
> > ACPI and MPS, we have just started using a different configuration now 
> > and an interrupt source override provided by the manufacturer 
> > explicitly states INTIN2 is good to use.  In a sense you were simply 
> > lucky previously the kernel was bad enough with the way it configured 
> > the timer through the I/O APIC it failed completely avoiding the bug 
> > in your firmware.  Now the bug has got uncovered.
> 
> well as long as we eliminate the bad effects around via DMI exceptions 
> nobody will feel the need to argue whether it's a regression ;-)

If all boxes affected by this particulare breakage are covered by DMI-based
workarounds, they will continue to work and that won't be any regression.
The point is that the patch should go along with such workarounds.

> [this problem could be argued to be a regression, even if it's caused by
> prior luck/stupidity of Linux. We have to live with the effects of our
> mistakes.] 

That's exactly right.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/