linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] alderlake crashes (random memory corruption?) with 6.0 i915 / ucode related

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 Oct 2022 13:19:08 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] alderlake crashes (random memory corruption?) with
 6.0 i915 / ucode related

CCing the regression mailing list, as it should be in the loop for all
regressions, as explained here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html

On 17.10.22 12:48, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 10/17/22 10:39, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> With 6.0 the following WARN triggers:
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bios.c:477:
>>>>
>>>>         drm_WARN(&i915->drm, min_size == 0,
>>>>                  "Block %d min_size is zero\n", section_id);
>>>
>>> What's the value of section_id that gets printed?
>>
>> I'm guessing this is [1] fixed by commit d3a7051841f0 ("drm/i915/bios:
>> Use hardcoded fp_timing size for generating LFP data pointers") in
>> v6.1-rc1.
>>
>> I don't think this is the root cause for your issues, but I wonder if
>> you could try v6.1-rc1 or drm-tip and see if we've fixed the other stuff
>> already too?
> 
> 6.1-rc1 indeed does not trigger the drm_WARN and for now (couple of
> reboots, running for 5 minutes now) it seems stable. 6.0.0 usually
> crashed during boot (but not always).
> 
> Do you think it would be worthwhile to try 6.0.0 with d3a7051841f0 ?
> 
> Any other commits which I can try before I go down the bisect route ?
> 
> (I'm assuming this will also affect other users, so we really need
> to fix this for 6.0.x

+1

> before it starts hitting Arch + Fedora users)

FWIW, I heard both openSUSE Tumbleweed and Arch switched to 6.0.y in the
past few days already.

Ciao, Thorsten