linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 07/12] e1000e: debug contention on NVM SWFLAG

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200810021933.23677.okir@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:33:22 +0200
From:	Olaf Kirch <okir@...e.de>
To:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc:	"Jiri Kosina" <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-netdev@...r.kernel.org, kkeil@...e.de, agospoda@...hat.com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, "Graham, David" <david.graham@...el.com>,
	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, chris.jones@...onical.com,
	tim.gardner@...el.com, airlied@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/12] e1000e: debug contention on NVM SWFLAG

On Thursday 02 October 2008 18:27:12 Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> so, why now?  Drivers since before the e1000/e1000e split had this same
> code, with no reports of problems.  This code has been heavily tested,
> and one of the platforms easily reproducing this has been available for
> 3 years now (ich8), with code that is basically unchanged in the driver.

Possibly the dhcp client is doing something differently, or at a much higher
frequency. At any rate, it seems we're seeing this now even when we just
use init level 3, without X involvement. Karsten reports NVM corruption
after 34 reboots into init level 3.

> The flash control registers are documented in the ICH documentation, and
> are located at physical memory location indicated by BAR1 in the config
> space of device 0:19.0
> 
> I wonder if we couldn't put a check in to see if the value we end up
> reading from the register controlling the operation matches the
> operation we were expecting (read vs write vs block erase)

That may help, yes.

Olaf
-- 
Neo didn't bring down the Matrix. SOA did.
				--soafacts.com

--
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/