linux-kernel - Re: HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- found another user with the same regression

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:48:02 -0700
From:	"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
To:	"David Witbrodt" <dawitbro@...global.net>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Linux-kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- found another user with the same regression

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:05 AM, David Witbrodt <dawitbro@...global.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > - Is there any chance I can get it into the stable 2.6.26.X updates?
>>> > (Who should I ask, or are only developers allowed to lobby for this
>>> > sort of thing?)
>>>
>>> after the patch get into linus tree. Greg will put the patch into 2.6.26.X
>>
>> OK, thanks a bunch.
>>
>>
>>> > - Are you worried about the potential problems of a quirk-based approach?
>>> > What if many more people experience a similar regression once 2.6.26 or
>>> > later appears in their distribution?  I'm sure you don't want to have to
>>> > write a different quirk for each individual's hardware, and this problem
>>> > did not arise with the approach used for resource management in 2.6.25.
>>>
>>> this patch should be safe.
>>>
>>> 2.6.26 is fixing one bug about reserving local apic address and that
>>> in e820 table.
>>> and it reveals one bios bug.
>>
>> Correction -- it revealed at least two.  See the link I posted earlier in
>> this thread:
>>
>> http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0808.2/1807.html
>>
>> Scroll down to the line that starts with "[blog]" for the link. You can see
>> the discussion I had encouraging him to come here to help us troubleshoot
>> if you go to that blog and click "Comments".
>>
>> I only mention this as a warning, in case it could lead to a lot of extra
>> problems for you later.  If you're quite sure that everything is OK, then
>> all I can do is thank you again and keep my fingers crossed for you and the
>> kernel team that nothing bad happens when 2.6.2[67] hit the major distros.
>
> after discussing with Ingo, we have one more generic way to detect the
> same situation.
>
> please help to verify the attached patch. ( don't apply previous patch)
>

and please test attached patch too. ( could test it without two patches)

YH

View attachment "only_put_e820_ram_in_res_tree.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (952 bytes)