linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dmi_check_system can generate Warnings when no DMI table is present

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, 23 Oct 2009 08:09:36 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:	Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmi_check_system can generate Warnings when no DMI
 table is present

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 17:03 +0200, Erwan Velu wrote:
> Daniel Walker a écrit :
> > [...]
> > It's your defect, so you can still try to fix it (unless the "xen
> > people" or someone else beats you to it.) 
> >
> > It looks like on a normal system dmi_scan_machine() gets called very
> > early in setup_arch() arch/x86/kernel/setup.c . A possible good fix
> > might be to add a dmi_disable() into the dmi driver that just shuts off
> > dmi, and run that in xen_arch_setup() in arch/x86/xen/setup.c 
> Could it make sense having this patch (I can work on it) while keeping 
> my previous patch ?
> Does it make sense keeping the default return value I've been adding 
> when no dmi table is found ?

Ingo mentioned that the returning mechanism your adding was left out
intentionally to catch this error, so I don't think your original patch
could be included .. 

Daniel

--
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/