linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/i8259: Work around buggy legacy PIC

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 20:40:10 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Sachi King <nakato@...ato.io>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     "x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable\@vger.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/i8259: Work around buggy legacy PIC

Max,

On Sat, May 15 2021 at 00:47, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> I believe the theory was that, while the PIC is advertised in ACPI, it
> might be expected to not be used and only present for some legacy reason
> (therefore untested and buggy). Which I believe led to the question
> whether we shouldn't prefer IOAPIC on systems like that in general. So I
> guess it comes down to how you define "systems like that". By Tomas'
> comment, I guess it should be possible to implement this as "systems
> that should prefer IOAPIC over legacy PIC" quirk.
>
> I guess all modern machines should have an IOAPIC, so it might also be
> preferable to expand that definition, maybe over time and with enough
> testing.

I just double checked and we actually can boot just fine without the
PIC even when it is advertised, but disfunctional.

Can you please add "apic=verbose" to the kernel command line and provide
full dmesg output for a kernel w/o your patch and one with your patch
applied?

Thanks,

        tglx