linux-kernel - RE: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI?

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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce 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:	Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:25:50 -0800
From:	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
To:	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, "Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc:	"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	"Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	"Rudolf Marek" <r.marek@...embler.cz>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<lm-sensors@...sensors.org>
Subject: RE: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI?

In other words, as per my earlier message:

Port addresses can be dynamically generated by the AML code and thus,
there is no way that the ACPI subsystem can statically predict any
addresses that will be accessed by the AML.

Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-acpi-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Machek
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 1:21 PM
> To: Jean Delvare
> Cc: Matthew Garrett; Chuck Ebbert; Rudolf Marek; linux-
> acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel; lm-sensors@...sensors.org
> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with
> ACPI?
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > > > Is there anything preventing us from doing such a walk and pre-
> allocate
> > > > all the I/O ranges? I am not familiar with the ACPI code at all,
> would
> > > > you possibly propose a patch doing that?
> > >
> > > ACPI AML is probably turing-complete: I'm afraid you are trying to
> > > solve the halting problem (-> impossible).
> >
> > Can you please translate this into something mere humans like myself
> > have a chance to understand?
> 
> ACPI AML is turing-complete -- that means it is as powerful any
> programming language. It can do arbitrary computation. That means it
> is theoretically impossible to analyze its accesses using any program.
> 
> Now... may be possible to introduce _some_ ACPI BIOSes, but doing it
> would certainly be very complex -- we are talking "put gcc into
> kernel" here.
> 
> So no, it is not possible to preallocate the ranges.
> 								Pavel
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures)
> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi"
in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/