linux-kernel - Re: ACPI on Averatec 2370

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, 8 Aug 2007 16:41:59 +0200
From:	"Joachim Deguara" <joachim.deguara@....com>
To:	"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	"Cal Peake" <cp@...olutedigital.net>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	"Gabriel C" <nix.or.die@...glemail.com>,
	"Frank Hale" <frankhale@...il.com>,
	"Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kernel ACPI Mailing List" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	len.brown@...el.com, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: ACPI on Averatec 2370

On Wednesday 08 August 2007 02:06:31 Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 06:15:37PM -0400, Cal Peake wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > MSR_K8_ENABLE_C1E lo == 0x04c14015
> > > > MSR_K8_ENABLE_C1E hi == 0x00000000
> > > > lo & ENABLE_C1E_MASK == 0
> > >
> > > And yeah, that claims that C1E is not on, but:
> > > > amd_apic_timer_broken: forcing return value of 1
> >
> > So it seems my initial debugging report was, err, incomplete. I failed to
> > notice that the amd_apic_timer_broken function was getting called twice,
> > once for each core.
> >
> > The second call shows this:
> >
> >   MSR_K8_ENABLE_C1E == 0x14c14015
>
> Ah interesting. Ok finally that all starts making sense.
>
> Not sure why the MSR varies between cores though.

This is a BIOS bug as the BIOS should have programmed the MSR the same for 
both cores.  See section 10.2.4 of the Rev F BKDG [1] (10.2.4.1 talks about 
the SMI case but a newer version of the doc not yet release has similar 
wording about both cores needing to have the bit set for the chipset case).

-Joachim

[1] 
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/32559.pdf


-
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/