linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.29-rc6

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:	Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:43:38 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29-rc6


* john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> wrote:

> > Ingo, Thomas: On the hardware I'm testing the fast-pit 
> > calibration only triggers probably 80-90% of the time. About 
> > 10-20% of the time, the initial check to 
> > pit_expect_msb(0xff) fails (count=0), so we may need to look 
> > more at this approach.

We definitely need to improve calibration quality.

The question is - why does fast-calibration fail 10-20% of the 
time on your test-system? Also, why exactly do we miscalibrate? 
Could you please have a look at that?

One theory would be that the PIT readout is unreliable. Windows 
does not make use of it, so it's not the most tested aspect of 
the PIT. Is that what happens on your box?

	Ingo
--
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/