linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] xen: features and fixes for 4.8-rc0

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, 28 Jul 2016 01:09:06 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Vrabel <dvrabel@...tab.net>,
	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] xen: features and fixes for 4.8-rc0

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 07:57:34 PM Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 27/07/16 19:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:45 AM, David Vrabel <dvrabel@...tab.net> wrote:
> >> Shannon Zhao (16):
> >>       Xen: ACPI: Hide UART used by Xen
> > So this caused a trivial conflict. No biggie, it wasn't bad and the
> > patch was acked by Rafael. However, looking at it made me somewhat
> > unhappy.
> >
> > Should the device entry in ACPI really be hidden unconditionally? In
> > particular, if we are *not* running under virtualization, it sounds
> > wrong to hide it.
> >
> > Comments? Am I missing something?
> 
> The purpose of the ACPI STAO table (Status Override table, ratified in
> ACPI 6.0) is to list items elsewhere in the ACPI namespace which should
> be completely ignored.  It is used in cases where it is impossible or
> prohibitive to edit the system AML.
> 
> The patch itself only hides the UART if instructed to do so by the STAO
> table (last hunk).

Right.

The STAO definition document:

http://wiki.xenproject.org/mediawiki/images/0/02/Status-override-table.pdf

requires as to "operate as if that device does not exist", quite literally.

Thanks,
Rafael