Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1825046
| Summary: | NVIDIA Turing GPU "secure boot" is broken and can lead to full system lockups | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ben Skeggs <bskeggs> |
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Kernel Maintainer List <kernel-maint> |
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | urgent | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 32 | CC: | airlied, awilliam, bcotton, bskeggs, fedoraproject, gmarr, hdegoede, ichavero, itamar, jarodwilson, jeremy, jglisse, john.j5live, jonathan, josef, kernel-maint, linville, masami256, mchehab, mjg59, robatino, sgallagh, steved |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-05-25 17:09:30 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1705306 | ||
|
Description
Ben Skeggs
2020-04-16 23:01:51 UTC
Proposed as a Blocker for 32-final by Fedora user bskeggs using the blocker tracking app because: We have requests from Lenovo to ensure that the Thinkpad P1/P53 are well supported in the F32 release, and this bug severely impacts system stability. it is really difficult for us to accept a bug that is not publicly visible as a blocker or FE. Fedora is a public project. Does the description really need to be private? if so, is there at least some sanitized version we can make visible? the *change to the kernel package itself* is necessarily publicly visible, so I don't see how this is secret... FEDORA-2020-bebcd88161 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bebcd88161 FEDORA-2020-bebcd88161 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bebcd88161` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bebcd88161 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. (In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #2) > it is really difficult for us to accept a bug that is not publicly visible > as a blocker or FE. Fedora is a public project. Does the description really > need to be private? if so, is there at least some sanitized version we can > make visible? > > the *change to the kernel package itself* is necessarily publicly visible, > so I don't see how this is secret... It doesn't need to be private, I've fixed that now. While this is a serious bug, Turing-based processors are still relatively new (and expensive!). I don't think we'd be likely to block on such a small subset of hardware at the Go/No-Go meeting, particularly with this bug coming in after we've already slipped once. I'm +1 FE for this. Given that a fix is ready and we are going to be respinning for another blocker bug anyway, we should get this in. +1 FE for sure. I'd entertain an argument as to why it should be a blocker. Yeah, same place as Stephen and Ben for me, +1 FE for sure, sceptical on blocker (but as we need to respin it's somewhat academic). (In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #9) > Yeah, same place as Stephen and Ben for me, +1 FE for sure, sceptical on > blocker (but as we need to respin it's somewhat academic). Well, it's academic as long as the provided fix actually works. FWIW, I asked FESCo to rule on whether they think it needed to be a special blocker and the result was "no". Discussed during the 2020-04-20 blocker review meeting: [0] The decision to classify this bug as a "RejectedBlocker" and an "AcceptedFreezeException" was made as we think the impact here is too narrow to qualify as blocker (it only affects a very new NVIDIA hardware generation), but certainly significant enough to accept as an FE. [0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2020-04-20/f32-blocker-review.2020-04-20-16.01.txt This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '32'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 32 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2021-05-25. Fedora 32 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |