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  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, 14 Aug 2014 15:56:13 +0000
From:	"Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
CC:	"Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
	Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	"Linux Wireless List" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Intel wireless microcode problem..

> >
> > There is a new firmware that seems to help the problem. You can get it
> > from Emmanuel's git clone. As he wrote earlier
> 
> So quite frankly, this is *not* acceptable. We have regression policies for the
> kernel, and this seems to be a kernel regression with the currently released
> firmware. And I'm not downloading experimental firmware while traveling
> with this laptop being my only way to work.
> 
> The warnings cause *so* much message log spam that the machine is
> occasionally spending 5% of CPU time on systemd journaling, and
> presumably filling up disk space too.
> 
> And the same way we don't tell people "update your buggy user space"
> when we introduce kernel regressions, we don't tell people "try a new
> firmware".
> 
> People who have old systems (old distributions, old firmware, old hardware,
> old *anything*) that works with their previous kernel, are supposed to be
> able to upgrade their kernel with no regressions.
> That's the rules for the kernel, and that's what the rules have been for a long
> time. Kernel developers - including wireless driver writers
> - had better understand that rule. It's the absolute #1 rule when it comes to
> kernel development. This is not something new and surprosing.
> 
> The insane amount of logging needs to be fixed. The wireless *works*, but
> the logging is too verbose.
> 
> Now, maybe this isn't actually a kernel regression at all - maybe triggered by
> the horrid internet I have while traveling - but I tried twice, and when I
> booted into the regular Fedora kernel for testing (oh, just noticed that it's
> 3.15.8, not 3.16-based), I didn't see this kind of log spamming. So it looks like
> a regression to me, and we have rules about regressions. And they are just
> about the ONLY hard rules we have. But that regression rule really is very
> very important indeed.
> 
> The wireless *works* with the current firmware, so all that is required is to
> make sure that the kernel stops spamming the logs so heavily. It would
> obviously be better to try to figure out *why* the microcode error happens,
> and what changed in the kernel to trigger it, but the "don't make the
> machine have trouble with the insane amount of logs" is at least an
> acceptable workaround.
> 
> Ok?
> 
As I said, I am tyring to repro right now - you are 100% right we are fully committed to make the current firmware work. The "experimental" firmware is just a firmware with a version problem - this is why I didn't release it formally. You can safely use it until we fix the problem.
And we will fix it.
And no - it is not related to the internet - this is surely a bug in our driver / firmware interface. I am currently trying to see how I can fix it - but I am also travelling...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists