linux-kernel - Re: pciehp is broken from 4.10-rc1

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:25:45 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pciehp is broken from 4.10-rc1

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:35:28PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:37:06PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 08:34:54AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > @Mika, Rafael: Are you aware of Skylake machines with unreliable link
> > > training, or perhaps errata of Skylake chips related to link training
> > > on hotplug ports?
> > 
> > According to the 100-series (the chipset used with Skylake) errata
> > below, I don't see any mentions related to PCIe link training issues.
> > 
> > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/100-series-chipset-spec-update.pdf
> 
> Yinghai Lu responded off-list that the hardware in question is an
> unreleased / secret Intel product, so this particular issue cannot
> be expected to be documented publicly at this point.
> 
> Of course this raises the question whether issues with unreleased
> products can at all be considered valid regressions, given that the
> final product may not regress.  It seems like a novelty to me that
> patches would get reverted for something like this, but we'll see.

I assume the hardware will eventually be released, and I assume the
hardware will not be changed because of this issue.  I would like to
avoid the situation of having v4.9 but not v4.10 work on this
hardware.