linux-kernel - Re: More E820 brokenness

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, 27 Sep 2007 16:27:22 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jordan Crouse <jordan.crouse@....com>
CC:	jkeating@...hat.com, Joerg Pommnitz <pommnitz@...oo.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: More E820 brokenness

Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 27/09/07 15:47 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>> Breaks on the Geode - original behavior.
>>>
>>> I think that having boot_prams.e820_entries != 0 makes the kernel
>>> assume the e820 data is correct.
>>>
>> Okay, now I'm utterly baffled how 2.6.22 ever worked on this Geode,
>> because this, to the best of my reading, mimics the 2.6.22 behavior
>> exactly.  DID IT REALLY, and/or did you make any kind of configuration
>> changes?
> 
> I copied in a 2.6.22 kernel to see that it really did work, and it did.
> But here's the crazy part - I did a dmesg, and it looks like it
> *is* using e820 data, and it looks complete (I see the entire map - 
> including the ACPI and reserved blocks way up high).
> 
> So apparently it was the 2.6.22 code that was buggy, but reading it,
> I don't immediately see how. 
> 

Oh bugger, looks like this one might be genuinely my fault after all.
The ID check in the new code is buggy.

Can you please test this revised patch out (against current -git)?

	-hpa




View attachment "diff" of type "text/plain" (643 bytes)