Hair Restorer
flag
5 messages - Collapse all
/groups/adfetch?hl=en&adid=pRFccxEAAABYQUk7UIe2XfLzb90hLGdjFSRgCP-avRN4YT0eROC0jw
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
1.  Jonathan Sizz  
View profile  
(3 users)  More options Jul 18 2006, 4:47 pm
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
From: Jonathan Sizz <jonathan_sizz.nos...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:47:48 +0100
Local: Tues, Jul 18 2006 4:47 pm
Subject: Hair Restorer
I refer to SCO's redacted whinge - 724-the-mothership, not
724-A-the-shuttlecraft.  Bottom of page 44.  Footnote 12.

I take it that "hair restorer" is a Very Silly Nickname for a Very Silly
Bugfix of doing four writes to some gun-totin' register.  If so, SCO is
now actually claiming, get this, IBM's Sekrit Knowlege of i386 APIC bugs.

*boggle*

Anyone know any more about this?


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
2.  Jonathan Sizz  
View profile  
(3 users)  More options Jul 18 2006, 5:11 pm
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
From: Jonathan Sizz <jonathan_sizz.nos...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:11:14 +0100
Local: Tues, Jul 18 2006 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: Hair Restorer
Okay, following up on myself here.

Read this and then tell me how, even on Planet Zzbzz, this is a contractually
controlled method or concept??

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0302.3/0955.html

---->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8----

From: James Cleverdon (james...@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Feb 26 2003 - 19:32:09 EST

On Wednesday 26 February 2003 08:52 am, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
[ Snip! ]

You want _that_ story, eh? 8^)

        * * * * *

Yeah we had ESR problems on the original NUMA-Q boxes with P6 CPUs. On system
shutdown, CPU 0 on one or more secondary nodes would occasionally spasm with
an infinite stream of APIC error interrupts claiming invalid message. A
couple hardware guys and I spent a lot of time looking at the APIC bus with
special APIC bus analyzers, etc. We _never_ caught a malformed message on
the APIC bus.

Once a CPU started weirding out like this, it was impossible to make it shut
up. We could clear the error status, and it would show cleared in the ESR,
but the local APIC would reissue the same error interrupt as soon as we
returned from the error handler.

In fact, with kernel printf turned off we would get about a million of them
per second, faster than most APIC messages could be sent over the APIC bus.
(This was a 16.6667 MHz two bit wide bus. Messages were about 10 to 40
frames long.)

Thus, I concluded that it was some weird error state in the local APIC. We
never got any answer back from Intel on how to clear this state, let alone
admission that it existed, so we just turned off the APIC error IRQ. Since
we were shutting down the system anyway, this seemed an adequate kludge.

Writing 0 to the ESR four times was done out of paranoia, and a desire to
grind the clear deeper into the local APIC's state machine. I have no
evidence that it ever really fixed this bug. Nothing did.

Maybe this weirdness was fixed in P2s or later CPUs. Maybe. Intel never did
say anything about it to us. Regardless, the four writes to ESR is still
enshrined in Dynix/PTX's APIC error handler, and will remain a hidden
testimony to this bug for as long as IBM maintains PTX support.

--
James Cleverdon
IBM xSeries Linux Solutions
{jamesclv(Unix, preferred), cleverdj(Notes)} at us dot ibm dot com

---->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8----


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
3.  infosecgroupie  
View profile  
(2 users)  More options Jul 18 2006, 5:15 pm
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
From: infosecgroupie <infosecgrou...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:15:11 -0700
Local: Tues, Jul 18 2006 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: Hair Restorer

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:47:48 +0100, Jonathan Sizz wrote:
> I refer to SCO's redacted whinge - 724-the-mothership, not
> 724-A-the-shuttlecraft.  Bottom of page 44.  Footnote 12.

> I take it that "hair restorer" is a Very Silly Nickname for a Very
> Silly Bugfix of doing four writes to some gun-totin' register.  If
> so, SCO is now actually claiming, get this, IBM's Sekrit Knowlege of
> i386 APIC bugs.

> *boggle*

> Anyone know any more about this?

Refer to http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/day=20030227

In full:

Re: [BUG] 2.5.63: ESR killed my box!

On Wednesday 26 February 2003 08:52 am, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
[ Snip! ]

You want _that_ story, eh?   8^)

So the reference to "hair restorer" backreferences to "tearing my hair out".

- i_s_g
--
infosecgroupie
http://www.finchhaven.com/TSCOG/

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
4.  Jonathan Sizz  
View profile  
(1 user)  More options Jul 18 2006, 5:23 pm
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
From: Jonathan Sizz <jonathan_sizz.nos...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:23:26 +0100
Local: Tues, Jul 18 2006 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: Hair Restorer

> So the reference to "hair restorer" backreferences to "tearing my hair out".
> - i_s_g

Incredibly, even though our messages crossed, I'd missed that detail -- thanks!

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
5.  infosecgroupie  
View profile  
(3 users)  More options Jul 18 2006, 5:40 pm
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
From: infosecgroupie <infosecgrou...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:40:25 -0700
Local: Tues, Jul 18 2006 5:40 pm
Subject: Re: Hair Restorer

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:23:26 +0100, Jonathan Sizz wrote:
>> So the reference to "hair restorer" backreferences to "tearing my hair
>> out". - i_s_g

> Incredibly, even though our messages crossed, I'd missed that detail --
> thanks!

Here's the original, full-text from the LKML:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/2/26/272

From    James Cleverdon <>        
Subject Re: [BUG] 2.5.63: ESR killed my box!    
Date    Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:32:09 -0800

On Wednesday 26 February 2003 08:52 am, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
[ Snip! ]

You want _that_ story, eh?   8^)

*****

Yeah we had ESR problems on the original NUMA-Q boxes with P6 CPUs.  On system
shutdown, CPU 0 on one or more secondary nodes would occasionally spasm with
an infinite stream of APIC error interrupts claiming invalid message.  A
couple hardware guys and I spent a lot of time looking at the APIC bus with
special APIC bus analyzers, etc.  We _never_ caught a malformed message on
the APIC bus.

Once a CPU started weirding out like this, it was impossible to make it shut
up.  We could clear the error status, and it would show cleared in the ESR,
but the local APIC would reissue the same error interrupt as soon as we
returned from the error handler.

In fact, with kernel printf turned off we would get about a million of them
per second, faster than most APIC messages could be sent over the APIC bus.  
(This was a 16.6667 MHz two bit wide bus.  Messages were about 10 to 40
frames long.)

Thus, I concluded that it was some weird error state in the local APIC.  We
never got any answer back from Intel on how to clear this state, let alone
admission that it existed, so we just turned off the APIC error IRQ.  Since
we were shutting down the system anyway, this seemed an adequate kludge.

Writing 0 to the ESR four times was done out of paranoia, and a desire to
grind the clear deeper into the local APIC's state machine.  I have no
evidence that it ever really fixed this bug.  Nothing did.

Maybe this weirdness was fixed in P2s or later CPUs.  Maybe.  Intel never did
say anything about it to us.  Regardless, the four writes to ESR is still
enshrined in Dynix/PTX's APIC error handler, and will remain a hidden
testimony to this bug for as long as IBM maintains PTX support.

--
James Cleverdon
IBM xSeries Linux Solutions
{jamesclv(Unix, preferred), cleverdj(Notes)} at us dot ibm dot com

- i_s_g
--
infosecgroupie
http://www.finchhaven.com/TSCOG/


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google