linux-kernel - Re: [bisected] Kernel v6.9-rc3 fails to boot on a Thinkpad T60 with MITIGATION

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:49:01 +0200
From: Erhard Furtner <erhard_f@...lbox.org>
To: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Cc: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>, Bagas
 Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jpoimboe@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov
 <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra
 <peterz@...radead.org>, Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [bisected] Kernel v6.9-rc3 fails to boot on a Thinkpad T60 with
 MITIGATION_RETHUNK=y (regression from v6.8.5)

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 11:46:09 +0200
"Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:

> On 13.04.24 11:19, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> 
> There was an earlier report about this here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/78e0d19c-b77a-4169-a80f-2eef91f4a1d6@gmail.com/
> 
> Boris there suggested: "perhaps we should make
> CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETHUNK depend on !X86_32":
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240403173059.GJZg2SUwS8MXw7CdwF@fat_crate.local/
> 
> But that did not happen afaics. Would it be wise to go down that path?
> 
> Ciao, Thorsten

Ah I see. Well in my case it's no old P4 heater but a not that ancient T2400 Intel Core Duo with 31W TDP. ;)

But good to hear I would not need CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETHUNK anyhow? If that's the case depending on !X86_32 would make sense. Don't know whether the 32bit Intel Atoms (the only 'recent' X86_32 CPU left besides the Core Duo) would need this mitigation.

Regards,
Erhard