linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] x86: reboot doesn't reboot

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:27:48 +0800
From:	"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] x86: reboot doesn't reboot

On 2014/4/4 8:12, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 04:52 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2014/4/4 7:40, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:23:32 +0800
>>> "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you please send the dmi table out?
>>>
>>> I already did as a gz attachment to H. Peter. You were on the Cc, did
>>> you not receive it?
>>>
>> Oh, I got it. This is a Preproduction machine.
>> When reboot failed via a method (=e or =p), there are two case.
>>
>> Case 1: this method do nothing, pass the attempt chance to the next method
>> Case 2: this method hangs the system
>>
>> I want to know if CF9 is case 1 or case 2. Could you please try the following
>> patch *without* any reboot parameters?
>>
>> (1) If we didn't see any string, then EFI hangs your box.
>> (2) if we see the first string but not the second one, CF9 hangs your box
>> (3) if we see both, couldn't be, because BIOS works on your box.
>>
> 
> Given that this machine doesn't have EFI, it seems kind of obvious, no?
> 
> 	-hpa

Yes. it should be but I want to confirm.

The current situation is,
- we have one(do we know more?) preproduction machine hangs by CF9.
- We have more than one(could be thousand known) production machine
works by CF9.

So, if I understand correctly(please correct me if I was wrong), I don't
think the justification is enough to revert the patch. The patch
includes EFI, CF9 and BIOS.

I'm open to make Steven's machine work:
(1) remove CF9
(2) add DMI table
(3) any other idea without a regression.

I prefer (2) or (3) if better because if we do (1) we will probably
receive some other regression reports.

Thanks,
-Aubrey
--
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/