linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allwinner A64 timer workaround

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:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:00:11 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com, Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allwinner A64 timer workaround

On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 04/07/18 09:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > 
> > If the patches fix a bug which already exist, it makes sense to
> > propagated the fix back to the stable versions.
>
> That's your call, but I'm not supportive of that decision, specially as
> we have information from the person developing the workaround that this
> doesn't fully address the issue.

The patches should not be applied at all. Simply because they don't fix the
issue completely.

>From a quick glance at various links and information about this, this very
much smells like the FSL_ERRATUM_A008585.

Has that been tried? It looks way more robust than the magic 11 bit
crystal ball logic.

Thanks,

	tglx