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: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 13:01:44 -0500 From: Mike Travis <mike.travis@....com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Hedi Berriche <hedi.berriche@....com>, Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@....com>, Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>, Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, Xiaoming Gao <gxm.linux.kernel@...il.com>, Rajvi Jingar <rajvi.jingar@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Fix TSC ADJUST breakage causing TSC failure Fix a breakage caused by enabling early tsc initialization which bypasses a check that disables the forcing of TSC ADJUST to 0 for chassis 0. This is common on systems where all the chassis start up asynchronously so which chassis should have a TSC ADJUST value of 0 is not predictable. The solution is to add a check earlier than this early tsc init to disable the potential of it incorrectly adjusting TSC ADJUST values that are already correctly initialized. * Patch 1 adds an early callable function (after efi_init) that will check if this system might be a UV system. * Patch 2 adds code to tsc_early_init() which disables adjusting the TSC ADJUST value if it's a UV system. This allows the later tsc_init function to test the tsc_async_resets flag that indicates the system chassis start up asynchronously, so which chassis should have a TSC ADJUST value of 0 is not predictable. Further references are in the patch. --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists