netdev - Re: oops/warning report for the week of November 26, 2008

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:	Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:47:14 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: oops/warning report for the week of November 26, 2008


* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:18:36 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >> * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Rank 8: mtrr_trim_uncached_memory (warning)
> > >>> 	Reported 227 times (619 total reports)
> > >>> 	There is a high number of machines where our MTRR checks
> > >>> 	trigger. I suspect we are too picky in accepting the MTRR
> > >>> 	configuration.
> > >>
> > >> the warning here means: "the BIOS messed up but we fixed it up for
> > >> you just fine".
> > >
> > > I don't believe that right now. we see so many of these, including 
> > > many "there's no MTRRs at all", that I am seriously suspecting that 
> > > our code is just incorrect somehow and triggering too much.
> > 
> > well we looked at existing reports and Linux was right to fix them
> > up. Show us one that is incorrect, then we can fix it up.
> > 
> > the "no MTRR's" are vmware/(also qemu?) guests not implementing a
> > full CPU emulation.
> 
> ... and it's still our fault in part, since we don't even check to 
> see if a cpu claims to support MTRR before complaining about it...
> 
> easy to fix though:

IIRC the problem is that vmware _does_ claim that it supports MTRRs. 

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html