Coretemp prochot is not critical #562
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
pushed as 8362905 |
freebsd-git
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2023
According to the Intel manual https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-vol-3b-part-2-manual.pdf the Thermal Status (0) and Thermal Status Log (1) bits report only a high temperature on the CPU, not a critical temperature as suggested in the coretemp driver. Check the Critical Temperature Log (5) instead. The critical temperature waives guarantees of correct function, therefore the CPU could have for example written some wrong values into memory at that point and the OS should be stopped ASAP as the state is no longer reliable. Reviewed by: imp (confirmed descriptions of bits, linux ignores these bits) Pull Request: #562
hardenedbsd-services
pushed a commit
to HardenedBSD/hardenedBSD
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2023
* Add indirect range The ranges currently either completely own the parent range, or it is a static and thus completely shared. The indirect range allows sharing without it being global. Co-authored-by: Nathaniel Filardo <nfilardo@microsoft.com>
bsdjhb
pushed a commit
to bsdjhb/cheribsd
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 22, 2023
According to the Intel manual https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-vol-3b-part-2-manual.pdf the Thermal Status (0) and Thermal Status Log (1) bits report only a high temperature on the CPU, not a critical temperature as suggested in the coretemp driver. Check the Critical Temperature Log (5) instead. The critical temperature waives guarantees of correct function, therefore the CPU could have for example written some wrong values into memory at that point and the OS should be stopped ASAP as the state is no longer reliable. Reviewed by: imp (confirmed descriptions of bits, linux ignores these bits) Pull Request: freebsd/freebsd-src#562
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
According to the Intel manual the Thermal Status (0) and Thermal Status Log (1) bits report only a high temperature on the CPU, not a critical temperature as suggested in the coretemp driver. I would remove the warning or check for the actual Critical Temperature Log (5) bit. Looking at the Log bit might be better than Critical Temperature Status (4), as AFAIK the critical temperature waives guarantees of correct function, therefore the CPU could have for example written some wrong values into memory at that point and the OS should be stopped ASAP as the state is no longer reliable.