linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/2] tsc/adjust: Cure suspend/resume issues and prevent TSC deadline timer irq storm

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612131744500.3415@nanos>
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:46:31 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Roland Scheidegger <rscheidegger_lists@...peed.ch>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Bruce Schlobohm <bruce.schlobohm@...el.com>,
        Kevin Stanton <kevin.b.stanton@...el.com>,
        Allen Hung <allen_hung@...l.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] tsc/adjust: Cure suspend/resume issues and prevent
 TSC deadline timer irq storm

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Roland Scheidegger wrote:

> Am 13.12.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Thomas Gleixner:
> > Roland reported interesting TSC ADJUST register wreckage on his DELL
> > machine, which seems to populate that MSR with a random number generator.
> 
> FWIW, I thought about the actual values some more and I don't actually
> think they are all that random any more: the behavior is consistent with
> the bios trying to zero the TSC of all cpus. If I understand this right,
> writing a zero to TSC would cause somewhat small negative values in the
> TSC_ADJ register at boot time, and larger negative values at suspend
> time (at least if the TSC just stops when suspended and isn't reset) -
> exactly what I'm seeing.
> (And of course the different TSC_ADJ values would be because the bios is
> writing TSC without any thoughts of synchronization, just one cpu after
> another).

Yeah, that might be. Still it looks like random nonsense and definitely the
BIOS developers did not follow the secrit boot protocol.

> > Deeper investagation into fixing this wreckage unearthed another special
> > feature which is designed by Intel: Negative TSC adjuste values cause
> > interrupt storms on the TSC deadline timer. Further details in patch 2/2
> 
> This actually looks like quite a serious hw bug to me, shouldn't there
> be an errata for such a bug?
> 
> And I still don't quite understand why the lockup doesn't happen after a
> warm boot, there must be something different there...

What are the adjust values after a warm boot?

Thanks,

	tglx