linux-kernel - Re: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check? (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86: avoid check hlt if no timer interrupts)

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]

Message-ID: <20100507234659.2e2dd344@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 7 May 2010 23:46:59 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alek Du <alek.du@...el.com>,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check?  (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86:
 avoid check hlt if no timer interrupts)

On Fri, 07 May 2010 15:27:34 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/2010 03:24 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> I'd be cool skipping it for family 5 or newer.  I'm just wondering if we
> >> should kill it completely -- IIRC it was only a handful of 386/486
> >> systems which had problems, usually due to marginal power supplies which
> >> couldn't handle the noise of a variable load (DOS not having any power
> >> management would run at a reliable 100% load) -- that's not exactly the
> >> type of systems which would have survived to modern day.
> > 
> > Also SMM and hardware bugs on some platforms - Cyrix MediaGX 5510 for
> > example where a hlt at the wrong moment during ATA transfers hung the box
> > until power cycle. But all old old stuff.
> 
> I think family < 5 seems a reasonable cutoff.
> 
> Note that the ATA transfer bug you describe above would not be caught by
> the existing check.

MediaGX5510 would I'm pretty certain be 486 reporting anyway
--
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/