linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13: IO APIC breakage on HP nx6325

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:	Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:59:27 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13: IO APIC breakage on HP nx6325

[Maciej W. Rozycki - Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:36:16PM +0100]
| On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| 
| > | 1. The 8259A interrupt actually escapes to the CPU somehow and is handled
| > |    as an ExtINTA interrupt.  This would make the code in check_timer()  
| > |    decide it has found a working configuration, while actually it has been
| > |    fooled.
| > 
| > Maciej, that is why we get 'received illegal vector'?
| > 
| > 	[  129.092151] APIC error on CPU1: 00(40)
| 
|  No, but that's an interesting observation, thank you -- well spotted!  
| 
|  ExtINTA stands for an "External INTA cycle" which is passed through from
| the CPU down to the system bus instead of being intercepted by the local
| APIC unit as usually.  In response to the INTA cycle one of the 8259A
| chips (either the master or the slave, depending on the source of the
| interrupt selected for handling) supplies the vector directly to the CPU
| through PCI (or whatever kind of bus links the legacy bridge with the host
| bridge) and then the FSB.  Therefore the vector bypasses all the APIC
| circuitry and cannot result in an APIC error interrupt.
| 
|  Instead the message quoted means an APIC input is misprogrammed
| somewhere.  This error happens if an interrupt is signalled to an unmasked
| APIC input which uses the Fixed or Lowest-Priority delivery mode and its
| vector implies priority below the minimum permitted, that is in the range
| from 0 to 15.
| 
|  We have code already in place in io_apic_{32,64}.c that can be used to
| find out the offender with a piece of code like this (#if 0 has to be
| deactivated for this to work and they may be bit rot bugs to be fixed):
| 
| int __init all_pic_dump(void)
| {
| 	int v = apic_verbosity;
| 
| 	apic_verbosity = APIC_DEBUG;
| 	print_IO_APIC();
| 	print_all_local_APICs();
| 	print_PIC();
| 	apic_verbosity = v;
| 
| 	return 0;
| }
| 
| late_initcall(all_pic_dump);
| 
| if somebody is willing to aid with debugging this problem.
| 
|   Maciej
| 

Thanks, Maciej,

i would really like to help... but I can't even hit this
bug on my laptop :(

		- Cyrill -
--
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/