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:	Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:24:20 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
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?

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:18:56 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Port (and memory) 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.
> 
> Can you take this as a wishlist item?
> 
> It would be nice if next version of acpi specs supported table
> 
> 'AML / SMM BIOS will access these ports'
> 
> ...so we can get it correct with acpi4 or something..?

I can only second Pavel's wish here. This would be highly convenient
for OS developers to at least know which resources are accessed by AML
and SMM. Without this information, we can never be sure that OS-level
code won't conflict with ACPI or SMM.

-- 
Jean Delvare
-
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/