linux-kernel - Re: Why do so many machines need "noapic"?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:03:16 -0400
From:	Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com>
To:	Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why do so many machines need "noapic"?

Dave Jones wrote:
> If memory serves correctly, that was circa 2.6.10, back in these commits..
> 
> commit a068ea13d1db406e15c346e93530343f6e70184c
> Author: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> Date:   Sun Oct 10 05:21:08 2004 -0400
> 
>     [ACPI] If BIOS disabled the LAPIC, believe it by default.
>     "lapic" is available to force enabling the LAPIC
>     in the event you know more than your BIOS vendor.
>     http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3238
> 
> commit 2fcfece90db9643b6f30a7ad343898a2871e6a81
> Author: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> Date:   Sat Oct 9 20:12:45 2004 -0400
> 
>     [ACPI] Don't enable LAPIC when the BIOS disabled it.
>     Doing so apparently breaks every Dell on Earth.
>     http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3238
> 
> 
> But those changes relate to the local APIC, which 'noapic' shouldn't
> have any effect on should it ?

If the LAPIC is disabled, then you CAN'T use the IO-APIC right?  So then
wouldn't the noapic option have no effects since the apic is already
disabled?



-
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/