Quantcast

Question about Seccheck showing kernel tainted (and then not)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Question about Seccheck showing kernel tainted (and then not)

stakanov
Question about SecCheck:
Two days ago I did get a curious outcome, saying:


- kernel.tainted = 0
+ kernel.tainted = 52

And they day after:


- kernel.tainted = 512
+ kernel.tainted = 0


So the question I have  is: how can a kernel be marked "tainted" and the day after "untainted"?
I since I did not AFAIK install something that taints, is that provoked by a patch? Or do I maybe have a hardware problem (memory?)

Thank you




---
Mail & Cloud Made in Germany mit 3 GB Speicher! https://email.freenet.de/mail/Uebersicht?epid=e9900000450

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Question about Seccheck showing kernel tainted (and then not)

Marcus Meissner
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:15:48AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> Question about SecCheck:
> Two days ago I did get a curious outcome, saying:
>
>
> - kernel.tainted = 0
> + kernel.tainted = 52
>
> And they day after:
>
>
> - kernel.tainted = 512
> + kernel.tainted = 0
>
>
> So the question I have  is: how can a kernel be marked "tainted" and the day after "untainted"?
> I since I did not AFAIK install something that taints, is that provoked by a patch? Or do I maybe have a hardware problem (memory?)

52 is 0x34, which I think would be TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC / TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK / TAINT_BAD_PAGE
512 is 0x200, which would be TAINT_WARN

Is there something in "dmesg" ?

Usually tainted woule go down to 0 only on reboots btw.

Ciao, Marcus
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Question about Seccheck showing kernel tainted (and then not)

stakanov
In reply to this post by stakanov


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Marcus Meissner
> Gesendet: Fr. 03.06.2016 10:11
> An: [hidden email]
> Kopie: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: [opensuse-security] Question about Seccheck showing kernel tainted (and then not)
>
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:15:48AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Question about SecCheck:
>> Two days ago I did get a curious outcome, saying:
>>
>>
>> - kernel.tainted = 0
>> + kernel.tainted = 52
>>
>> And they day after:
>>
>>
>> - kernel.tainted = 512
>> + kernel.tainted = 0
>>
>>
>> So the question I have  is: how can a kernel be marked "tainted" and the day after
> "untainted"?
>> I since I did not AFAIK install something that taints, is that provoked by a patch? Or do I maybe have a
> hardware problem (memory?)
>
> 52 is 0x34, which I think would be TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC / TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK / TAINT_BAD_PAGE
> 512 is 0x200, which would be TAINT_WARN
>
> Is there something in "dmesg" ?
>
> Usually tainted woule go down to 0 only on reboots btw.
>
> Ciao, Marcus
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht Ende-----

Hello Marcus and thank you for the reply.

It is actually both time 512 (the one "2" got lost in copy paste I guess, sorry for that).

The only warnings I find in dmesg are ACPI related:


[   25.422233] ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000001028-0x000000000000102F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000001000-0x000000000000107F (_SB_.PCI0.LPC_.PMIO) (20150410/utaddress-254)
[   25.422245] ACPI: If an ACPI driver is available for this device, you should use it instead of the native driver
[   25.422249] ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x00000000000011C0-0x00000000000011CF conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000001180-0x00000000000011FF (_SB_.PCI0.LPC_.LPIO) (20150410/utaddress-254)
[   25.422254] ACPI: If an ACPI driver is available for this device, you should use it instead of the native driver
[   25.422256] ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x00000000000011B0-0x00000000000011BF conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000001180-0x00000000000011FF (_SB_.PCI0.LPC_.LPIO) (20150410/utaddress-254)
[   25.422261] ACPI: If an ACPI driver is available for this device, you should use it instead of the native driver
[   25.422263] ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000001180-0x00000000000011AF conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000001180-0x00000000000011FF (_SB_.PCI0.LPC_.LPIO) (20150410/utaddress-254)
[   25.422267] ACPI: If an ACPI driver is available for this device, you should use it instead of the native driver
[   25.422268] lpc_ich: Resource conflict(s) found affecting gpio_ich

and


[    0.000000] ACPI: RSDP 0x00000000000F68E0 000024 (v02 LENOVO)
[    0.000000] ACPI: XSDT 0x00000000BB3F098C 000094 (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400  LTP 00000000)
[    0.000000] ACPI: FACP 0x00000000BB3F0B00 0000F4 (v04 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 LNVO 00000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X length mismatch in FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 16/32 (20150410/tbfadt-623)
[    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): Invalid length for FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 32, using default 16 (20150410/tbfadt-704)
[    0.000000] ACPI: DSDT 0x00000000BB3F0E6B 00DE88 (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 MSFT 03000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: FACS 0x00000000BB2E7000 000040
[    0.000000] ACPI: FACS 0x00000000BB2E7000 000040
[    0.000000] ACPI: SSDT 0x00000000BB3F0CB4 0001B7 (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 MSFT 03000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: ECDT 0x00000000BB3FECF3 000052 (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 LNVO 00000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: APIC 0x00000000BB3FED45 000084 (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 LNVO 00000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: MCFG 0x00000000BB3FEE01 00003C (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 LNVO 00000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: HPET 0x00000000BB3FEE3D 000038 (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 LNVO 00000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: ASF! 0x00000000BB3FEF34 0000A4 (v16 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 PTL  00000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: BOOT 0x00000000BB3FEFD8 000028 (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400  LTP 00000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: SSDT 0x00000000BB2E590A 00085B (v01 LENOVO TP-6Q    00001400 INTL 20050513)
[    0.000000] ACPI: TCPA 0x00000000BB38B000 000032 (v02 PTL     CRESTLN 06040000      00005A52)
[    0.000000] ACPI: DMAR 0x00000000BB381000 0000B8 (v01 INTEL  CP_DALE  00000001 INTL 00000001)
[    0.000000] ACPI: SSDT 0x00000000BB379000 0009F1 (v01 PmRef  CpuPm    00003000 INTL 20060912)
[    0.000000] ACPI: SSDT 0x00000000BB378000 000259 (v01 PmRef  Cpu0Tst  00003000 INTL 20060912)
[    0.000000] ACPI: SSDT 0x00000000BB377000 00049F (v01 PmRef  ApTst    00003000 INTL 20060912)

Related? I see them always, normally I do not get the kernel tainted output in seccheck though. The second about FADT I see it the first time though.  
In case, should I simply ignore (since if I well understand that is a bug in my BIOS)?

BTW, thank you for the reply


PS.
I am searching for a good documentation for seccheck. Do you have any source to share? Thanks in advance.



 

---
Alle Postfächer an einem Ort. Jetzt wechseln und E-Mail-Adresse mitnehmen! https://email.freenet.de/mail/Uebersicht?epid=e9900000451


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Loading...