linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] watchdog: Add watchdog timer support for the WinSystems EBC-C384

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, 28 Jan 2016 11:05:20 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, wim@...ana.be,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] watchdog: Add watchdog timer support for the
 WinSystems EBC-C384

> > 8-bit read of 299h – save this value
> > 8-bit write of 60h to 299h
> > 16-bit read of 29ah should return the base address of the WDT which is 564h
> > 8-bit write of saved value to 299h - don’t want t accidentally change the WDT base address  
> 
> If the system does return a value of 0x564, then it's pretty safe to say
> that the watchdog timer is implemented on the chip. However, I'm not
> sure it would be safe to send write commands to a port address until the
> hardware has been identified; this second method may not be the best
> route either.
> 
> What do you think?

Pokng at 299/29a could hang other systems, so DMI is definitely
preferable if it's not described in ACPI as it perhaps ought to have
been. If all boards with that DMI string have the device then sorted, if
not then perhaps check 299/29a after the DMI match.

Alan