linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] AMD ARAT fixes

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:	Tue, 17 May 2011 19:51:51 +0200
From:	Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@....de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
	"Ostrovsky, Boris" <Boris.Ostrovsky@....com>,
	"Herrmann3, Andreas" <Andreas.Herrmann3@....com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
	"Rosenfeld, Hans" <Hans.Rosenfeld@....com>, X86-ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] AMD ARAT fixes

Borislav Petkov wrote, on 05/17/11 19:46:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 07:21:43PM +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
>> Borislav Petkov wrote, on 05/17/11 18:53:
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:38:46PM -0400, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
>>>> A kernel version 2.6.38.6 patched with your two patches modifying only
>>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c starts and runs without problems on the affected
>>>> system with a AMD Turion 64 processor. The system is pure x86_64 (Debian
>>>> Release: wheezy/sid) with gcc version 4.6.1 20110428 (prerelease) (Debian
>>>> 4.6.0-6) and GNU C Library (Debian EGLIBC 2.13-4) stable release version 2.13.
>>>
>>> Thanks for testing!
>>>
>>>> The only obvious difference I see is the message "using C1E aware idle routine"
>>>> in dmesg.
>>>
>>> That was your CPU, right:
>>>
>>> vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
>>> cpu family      : 15
>>> model           : 36
>>> model name      : AMD Turion(tm) 64 Mobile Technology MT-40
>>> stepping        : 2
>>>
>>> ?
>> Yes, exactly.
>>
>>>
>>> If so, then the C1E idle line above shouldn't appear. Can you check that
>>> around line 698 in <arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c> you have the following:
>>>
>>>  const int amd_erratum_400[] =
>>>        AMD_OSVW_ERRATUM(1, AMD_MODEL_RANGE(0xf, 0x41, 0x2, 0xff, 0xf),
>>>                            AMD_MODEL_RANGE(0x10, 0x2, 0x1, 0xff, 0xf));
>>>
>> The lines 683--685 in this file on my affected system are equal to the three
>> lines above (except for formatting).
> 
> Ok, let me confirm whether I understand you correctly: are you seeing
> the C1E line _with_ the two patches applied or without?
> 
> I'm fairly certain that with the patches, you shouldn't be seeing the
> line and the first patch is actually the fix for your machine where
> you don't have to press a button to continue, AFAICT and if I'm not
> completely on crack here.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Yes, you are right, I saw it with the *unpatched* version. My mistake :-(
Sorry for the confusion and the trouble.
And thank you very much for caring.
-- 
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.

--
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/