linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT

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:	Sun, 02 Mar 2014 08:26:15 +0800
From:	"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len.Brown@...el.com,
	Adam Williamson <awilliam@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT_CF9 into the reboot
 sequence loop

> 
> On March 1, 2014 12:21:39 PM PST, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
>> if we've hit the keyboard controller and ACPI twice, and the system is still alive, and 
>> if we have standard PCI ports, 

>> it doesn't seem like poking them is likely to make anything actively
worse.
> 
This is exactly what I'm trying to express. thanks Matt. It doesn't make
anything worse, it makes reboot working on some systems.

On 2014/3/2 4:26, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> True... trying cf9_cond with low priority probably makes sense.

I'm not asking CF9 only, I'm asking all of the known method in reboot.c.
So, BIOS is appliable as well with the same logic and with low priority,
isn't it?

Thanks,
-Aubrey

--
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/