linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][POKE] Skip looking for ioapic overrides when ioapics are not 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:	Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:01:18 +0200
From:	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...glemail.com>
To:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	kurup_avinash@...oo.com, maciej.rutecki@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	rjw@...k.pl, zersaa@...il.com, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][POKE] Skip looking for ioapic overrides when ioapics are
 not present

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:48:43 +0200
> Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 10:01 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>> > index 68df09b..3940103 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>> > @@ -3789,6 +3789,9 @@ int acpi_get_override_irq(u32 gsi, int *trigger, int *polarity)
>> >  {
>> >     int ioapic, pin, idx;
>> >
>> > +   if (acpi_irq_model != ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOAPIC)
>> > +           return -1;
>> > +
>> >     if (skip_ioapic_setup)
>> >             return -1;
>> >
>>
>> Seems to have the same goal as commit
>> 678301ecadec24ff77ab310eebf8a32ccddb1850 ("x86, ioapic: Don't warn about
>> non-existing IOAPICs if we have none"), which got merged in the v2.6.38
>> cycle (authored by me, signed off by Ingo Molnar). Maybe Eric's patch is
>> more correct. I can't say as I was happy with the effect of my patch
>> (ie, make an uninteresting error disappear) and didn't investigate any
>> further. I have also no desire to dive into this matter again.
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
> Thanks for letting me know. Sedat, did you actually test with 2.6.38?
>
> Regards,
> Flo
>

I have and had this patch in my own patch-series *before* Debian
included it (IIRC right after Eric committed it to LKML).
To answer your question: Yes.
I have the patch also in my current linux-next kernels (next-20110331).

- Sedat -
--
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/