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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 15:06:26 +0100 From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de> To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> Cc: Fernando Ramos <greenfoo@....eu>, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>, Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>, Tedd Ho-Jeong An <tedd.an@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Apply initial command workaround for more Intel chips Dear Takashi, Am 10.12.21 um 14:23 schrieb Takashi Iwai: > On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:14:02 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote: >>>> Thanks, so this seems depending on the hardware, maybe a subtle >>>> difference matters. As far as I read the code changes, the workaround >>>> was applied in the past unconditionally, so it must be fairly safe >>>> even if the chip works as is. >>>> >>>> Or, for avoiding the unnecessarily application of the workaround, >>>> should it be changed as a fallback after the failure at the first >>>> try...? >>> >>> I don't know if this helps, but I started experiencing this same issue ("hci0: >>> command 0xfc05 tx timeout") yesterday after a kernel upgrade. >>> >>> My controller is a different one: >>> >>> 8087:0025 Intel Corp. Wireless-AC 9260 Bluetooth Adapter >>> ^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> I tried with different (older) versions of the v5.15.x kernel but none worked. >>> >>> Now, this is the interesting (?) part: today, when I switched on the computer >>> to keep testing, the bluetooth was *already* working once again. >>> >>> I have reviewed my bash history to try to figure out what is it that I did, and >>> the only thing I see is that yesterday, before going to sleep, I did a full >>> poweroff instead of a reset (which is what I used yesterday to try different >>> kernels). >>> >>> This does not make any sense... but then I found this [1] post from someone else >>> who experienced the same. >>> >>> Is there any reasonable explanation for this? Could this be the reason why you >>> seem to have different results with the same controller (8087:0a2a)? >> >> we trying to figure out what went wrong here. This should be really only an >> issue on the really early Intel hardware like Wilkens Peak. However it seems >> it slipped into later parts now as well. We are investigating what happened >> and see if this can be fixed via a firmware update or if we really have to >> mark this hardware as having a broken boot loader. > > The upstream bugzilla indicates that 8087:0aa7 seems hitting the same > problem: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215167 > > OTOH, on openSUSE Bugzilla, there has been a report that applying the > workaround for 8087:0026 may cause another issue about the reset > error, so the entry for 8087:0026 should be dropped. Can you confirm that commit 95655456e7ce (Bluetooth: btintel: Fix broken LED quirk for legacy ROM devices) [1] merged in the current Linux 5.17 cycle this week fixed the issue? Kind regards, Paul [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=95655456e7cee858a23793f67025765b4c4c227b
Powered by blists - more mailing lists