linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: disregard NVM checksum on tgp when valid checksum mask is not set

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: <20f39efe-ba5b-44b2-bfe6-b4ca17d6b0c1@ursu.me>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 21:44:06 +0300
From: Vlad URSU <vlad@...u.me>
To: "Lifshits, Vitaly" <vitaly.lifshits@...el.com>,
 Jacek Kowalski <jacek@...ekk.info>, Tony Nguyen
 <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Przemek Kitszel
 <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: disregard NVM checksum on tgp
 when valid checksum mask is not set

On 01.06.2025 13:19, Lifshits, Vitaly wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/15/2025 10:07 PM, Vlad URSU wrote:
>> On 15.05.2025 07:39, Lifshits, Vitaly wrote:
>>> Since the checksum word is 0xFFFF which is peculiar, can you dump the 
>>> whole NVM and share with us?
>>
>> Sure, here's a dump of my NVM
>>
>> Offset        Values
>> ------        ------
>> 0x0000:        d0 8e 79 07 78 c8 01 08 ff ff 44 00 01 00 6c 00
>> 0x0010:        ff ff ff ff c9 10 54 0a 28 10 f9 15 00 00 00 00
>> 0x0020:        00 00 00 00 00 80 05 a7 30 30 00 16 00 00 00 0c
>> 0x0030:        f3 08 00 0a 43 08 13 01 f9 15 ad ba f9 15 fa 15
>> 0x0040:        ad ba f9 15 ad ba f9 15 00 00 80 80 00 4e 86 08
> 
> You're right — I see that the SW compatibility bit is set and the 
> checksum appears to be incorrect.
> 
> Since the NVM is part of the system firmware and typically managed by 
> the system manufacturer, I recommend checking whether a firmware update 
> is available for your system as a first step.
> 
> If no update is available, perhaps we can consider ignoring the checksum 
> on TGP systems if one of the following conditions is met:
> 1. SW compatibility bit is not set (current Jacek's approach)
> 2. The checksum word at offset 0x3F retains its factory default value of 
> 0xFFFF.

I am already on the latest firmware. I have also tried downgrading to 
earlier versions and they have the same problem.