linux-kernel - Re: Testers wanted: Atom netbooks with x86

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

Date:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 13:59:15 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mateusz Jonczyk <mat.jonczyk@...pl>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Testers wanted: Atom netbooks with x86_64 disabled by BIOS

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:58 AM Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 11:14:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 28, 2021, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 03:07:24AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 28 2021 at 00:25, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:13:22PM +0100, Mateusz Jonczyk wrote:
> > > > > FWIW I tested on my ASUS 1025C which runs on an Atom N2600 forced to
> > > > > 32-bit. I had already tried in the past but wanted to give it a try
> > > > > again in case I'd have missed anything. Sadly it didn't work, I'm
> > > > > still getting the "requires an x86-64 CPU" message.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given these machines were really cheap, I've always suspected that they
> > > > > employ cheaper, low-grade CPUs, possibly having been subject to reduced
> > > > > tests where x86_64-specific parts were not even verified and might be
> > > > > defective. This may explain why they forcefully disable long mode
> > > there,
> > > > > but that's just speculation.
> > > >
> > > > There are some of these '32bit only' CPUs out there in the wild which
> > > > actually support long mode. Some of them even do not have the long mode
> > > > CPUID bit fused out.
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm aware of this as well. We might even have talked to the same
> > > "victim" :-)
> > >
> > > > But whether it works is a different story:
> > > >
> > > >   - If the CPUID bit is on, then the chance is high, but it runs out of
> > > >     spec (guarantee wise)
> > > >
> > > >   - If it's off is still might work by some definition of work as they
> > > >     might have fused off more or there are actual defects in some 64bit
> > > >     only area which are irrelevant when in 32bit mode.
> > > >
> > > > Even if it could work perfectly fine, the BIOS/SMM/ucode can prevent
> > > > switching to long mode.
> > > >
> > > > It's a lost cause.
> > >
> > > I agree. While I bought this netbook to have a 64-bit CPU and was extremely
> > > disappointed,
> >
> >
> > Where did you get an idea that it had 64-bit SoC from?
>
> It's an N2600, and I bought this laptop because N2600 supports 64-bit
> (and do have another mini-itx motherboard at work with the same CPU
> on it working pretty well in 64-bit):
>
>    https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/58916/intel-atom-processor-n2600-1m-cache-1-6-ghz.html

Wow, TIL. :-)

> > Atom Based 64-bit ones are Bay Trail, Cherry Trail, Tangier (Merrifield),
> > Anniedale (Moorefield) and all based on Skylake family (Apollo Lake,
> > Broxton, Gemini Lake, ...).
>
> Well, to be honest, I've never been able to remind (nor sort) all these
> totally crazy names. The day someone gives me a mnemotechnic hint to
> remind them and their ordering, that will make me reconsider them. For
> now they're all "something lake", and I find it particularly difficult
> to map them to SKUs.

It took me a few years to be on trend with those names, that's how
Wikipedia [1] helps.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko