linux-kernel - Re: Regression: memory corruption on Atmel SAMA5D31

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]

Message-ID: <272fb9f0-ad33-d956-4d0f-3524c553689c@microchip.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:26:39 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <peda@...ntia.se>, <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
CC:     <du@...ntia.se>, <Patrice.Vilchez@...rochip.com>,
        <Cristian.Birsan@...rochip.com>, <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <saravanak@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Regression: memory corruption on Atmel SAMA5D31

On 6/21/22 13:46, Peter Rosin wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> 2022-06-20 at 16:22, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> git@...hub.com:ambarus/linux-0day.git, branch dma-regression-hdmac-v5.18-rc7-4th-attempt
>>>
>>
>> Hi, Peter,
>>
>> I've just forced pushed on this branch, I had a typo somewhere and with that fixed I could
>> no longer reproduce the bug. Tested for ~20 minutes. Would you please test last 3 patches
>> and tell me if you can still reproduce the bug?
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I rebased your patches onto my current branch which is v5.18.2 plus a few unrelated
> changes (at least they are unrelated after removing the previous workaround to disable
> nand-dma entirely).
> 
> The unrelated patches are two backports so that drivers recognize new compatibles [1][2],
> which should be completely harmless, plus a couple of proposed fixes that happens to fix
> eeprom issues with the at91 I2C driver from Codrin Ciubotariu [3].
> 
> On that kernel, I can still reproduce. It seems a bit harder to reproduce the problem now
> though. If the system is otherwise idle, the sha256sum test did not reproduce in a run of
> 150+ attempts, but if I let the "real" application run while I do the test, I get a failure rate
> of about 10%, see below. The real application burns some CPU (but not all of it) and
> communicates with HW using I2C, native UARTs and two of the four USB-serial ports
> (FTDI, with the latency set to 1ms as mentioned earlier), so I guess there is more DMA
> pressure or something? There is a 100mbps network connection, but it was left "idle"
> during this test.
> 

Thanks, Peter.
I got back to the office, I'm rechecking what could go wrong.

ta