linux-kernel - Re: applesmc oops in 3.10/3.11

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, 1 Oct 2013 09:24:25 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Chris Murphy <bugzilla@...orremedies.com>
Cc:	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>, khali@...ux-fr.org,
	lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: applesmc oops in 3.10/3.11

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> 
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:55:26PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> >>>> Warning message triggered with 3.12.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc21.x86_64.
> >>>> 
> >>>> [   10.886016] applesmc: key count changed from 261 to 1174405121
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Explains the crash, but the new key count is very wrong. 1174405121 = 0x46000001.
> >>> Which I guess explains the subsequent memory allocation error in the log.
> >>> 
> >>> Henrik, any idea what might be going on ? Is it possible that the previous
> >>> command failure leaves some state machine in a bad state ?
> >> 
> >> I seem to recall a report on another similar state problem on newer
> >> machines, so maybe, yes. Older machines seem fine, I have never
> >> encountered the problem myself. Here is a patch to test that
> >> theory. It has been tested to be pretty harmless on two different
> >> generations.
> >> 
> >> I really really do not want to add an 'if (value is insane)' check ;-)
> >> 
> > Chris,
> > 
> > any chance you can load this patch on an affected machine so we can get
> > test feedback ? This one is too experimental to submit upstream without
> > knowing that it really fixes the problem.
> 
> Yes. What kernel.org source version should I apply it against? I'd use the non-debug config file from an equivalent version Fedora kernel, unless asked otherwise. And also should I test it on other vintages? I have here MBP4,1(2008); MBP8,2(2011), and MBP10,2(2012).
> 
Only requirement is that it also includes the previous patch, so it would be
optimal if you can apply it on top of the previous image.

Thanks,
Guenter
--
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/