| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:00:42 +0800 From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, Adam Williamson <awilliam@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [tip:x86/reboot] [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before the PCI reboot method On 2014/4/7 2:40, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > No question. The question at hand is if we should do it after all other > non-terminal (BIOS, triple) methods have been tried. > The reboot sequence before the change is: (1) ACPI (2) KEYBOARD (3) ACPI (4) KEYBOARD (5) TRIPLE The reboot sequence after the change is: (1) ACPI (2) KEYBOARD (3) ACPI (4) KEYBOARD (ADD_1) EFI (ADD_2) CF9 (ADD_3) BIOS (5) TRIPLE Steven's machine exactly hit (5), while CF9 hangs, so we encountered this regression. EFI is no question. So, Is everybody okay with the following sequence? (1) ACPI (2) KEYBOARD (3) ACPI (4) KEYBOARD (ADD_1) EFI (5) TRIPLE (ADD_2) CF9 (ADD_3) BIOS 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists