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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:02:10 +0200 From: "J.A. Magallón" <jamagallon@....com> To: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Strange mtrrs in Aspire One On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 14:54:24 -0700, "Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:22 AM, J.A. Magallón <jamagallon@....com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:05:51 -0700, "Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:57 PM, J.A. Magallón <jamagallon@....com> wrote: > >>> > Hi all... > >>> > > >>> > My aspire one is giving some strange MTRR settings with rc7-git5 (and > >>> > prevous kernels, but that is what I run now...): > >>> > > >>> > one:~> cat /proc/mtrr > >>> > reg00: base=0xfffe0000 (4095MB), size= 128KB: write-protect, count=1 > >>> > reg01: base=0xfffc0000 (4095MB), size= 128KB: uncachable, count=1 > >>> > >>> could make mtrr_cleanup to support 128K gran_size > >>> > >>> > reg02: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1 > >>> > reg03: base=0x10000000 ( 256MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1 > >>> > reg04: base=0x1f800000 ( 504MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1 > >>> > reg05: base=0x1f600000 ( 502MB), size= 2MB: uncachable, count=1 > >>> > reg06: base=0x1f500000 ( 501MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1 > >>> > >>> > reg07: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size= 128KB: uncachable, count=1 > >>> .. > >>> > BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009fc00 (usable) > >>> > >>> last entry is really sick... > >>> > >> > >> I have applied the patches you have posted in other threads, and this > >> give a very strange result. The mtrr cleanup did nothing, and I had to put > >> some printk's all around. > > > > will have one patch to assume the [0, 1M) to be coverred by var mtrrs. > > > > please check other three patches. > > [PATCH 1/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: print out correct type > [PATCH 2/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: first 1M should be coverred in var mtrrs > [PATCH 3/3] x86: mtrr_cleanup: treat WRPROT as UNCACHEABLE > Thanks, will try. > you may need to boot with "mtrr_gran_size=64k mtrr_chunk_size=64k" > This makes me think about a question. In the dual xeon box, the 'cleanup' ends with this setup: werewolf:~> cat /proc/mtrr reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1 reg01: base=0x40000000 (1024MB), size= 512MB: write-back, count=1 reg02: base=0x60000000 (1536MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1 reg03: base=0x70000000 (1792MB), size= 128MB: write-back, count=1 reg04: base=0x78000000 (1920MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1 reg05: base=0x7c000000 (1984MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1 reg06: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1 Ths options with 0 me loose were: gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G ... gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 128K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G ... gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 256K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G ... gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 512K chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G ... gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 32M num_reg: 8 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 128M num_reg: 6 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 256M num_reg: 5 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 512M num_reg: 4 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 1G num_reg: 3 lose cover RAM: 0G gran_size: 1M chunk_size: 2G num_reg: 2 lose cover RAM: 0G ... Found optimal setting for mtrr clean up gran_size: 64K chunk_size: 64M num_reg: 7 lose RAM: 0G Why did it choose that using 7 registers ? Should'n it get that with the smallest number of used registers, and from those the bigger gran_size ? If the purpose is to leave space for more mtrrs (from X or other...). In short, what is the purpose of having this: reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=1024MB: write-back, count=1 reg01: base=0x40000000 (1024MB), size= 512MB: write-back, count=1 reg02: base=0x60000000 (1536MB), size= 256MB: write-back, count=1 reg03: base=0x70000000 (1792MB), size= 128MB: write-back, count=1 reg04: base=0x78000000 (1920MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1 reg05: base=0x7c000000 (1984MB), size= 64MB: write-back, count=1 reg06: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1 instead of this: reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1 reg01: base=0x7ff00000 (2047MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1 If both set a hole, not a set of valid zones without holes ? ?? -- J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()ono!com> \ Software is like sex: \ It's better when it's free Mandriva Linux release 2009.0 (Cooker) for i586 Linux 2.6.25-jam18 (gcc 4.3.1 20080626 (GCC) #1 SMP -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists