linux-kernel - Re: Regression on Dell XPS13 (was: [char-misc for 4.10-rc4 V2] mei: bus: enable OS version only for SPT and newer)

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:   Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:11:12 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Mario.Limonciello@...l.com
Cc:     dvhart@...radead.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
        pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de, linux@...mhuis.info,
        tomas.winkler@...el.com, jan@...dor.com,
        alexander.usyskin@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yu.c.chen@...el.com, tomi.p.sarvela@...el.com, daniel@...ra.org,
        len.brown@...el.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression on Dell XPS13 (was: [char-misc for 4.10-rc4 V2] mei:
 bus: enable OS version only for SPT and newer)

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:11:45PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@...l.com wrote:
> Greg,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@...radead.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:34 PM
> > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>
> > Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com;
> > pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de; linux@...mhuis.info; tomas.winkler@...el.com;
> > jan@...dor.com; alexander.usyskin@...el.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > yu.c.chen@...el.com; tomi.p.sarvela@...el.com; daniel@...ra.org;
> > len.brown@...el.com; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: Regression on Dell XPS13 (was: [char-misc for 4.10-rc4 V2] mei:
> > bus: enable OS version only for SPT and newer)
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:38:43PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@...l.com
> > wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@...uxfoundation.org]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:24 PM
> > > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>
> > > > Cc: pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de; rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com;
> > > > linux@...mhuis.info; tomas.winkler@...el.com; jan@...dor.com;
> > > > alexander.usyskin@...el.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > > > yu.c.chen@...el.com; tomi.p.sarvela@...el.com; daniel@...ra.org;
> > > > len.brown@...el.com; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Regression on Dell XPS13 (was: [char-misc for 4.10-rc4 V2] mei:
> > > > bus: enable OS version only for SPT and newer)
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:57:49PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@...l.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > So in the <6s scenario, the intel-hid driver is responsible to
> > > > > receive the ACPI event and process accordingly.  The maintainer
> > > > > has a patch ready for the intel-hid portion of this work, but it's
> > > > > currently being reviewed by Intel to ensure it can be legally submitted
> > into the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Who at Intel do I need to go kick to make this mythical legal review
> > > > happen faster so we can see the code?
> > > >
> > > > Len and Rafael, what is going on here?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Len and Darren are both in the loop on the discussion around this patch.
> > > I don't know if they'll have any (public) comments they can add on the
> > > matter yet however.
> > 
> > Thanks Mario. Yes, there isn't much to say here in public other than to confirm
> > we are keenly aware of the problem and have been actively working on fixing
> > it, both for this instance, and the deeper systematic failure that resulted in this
> > situation. No amount of kicking will expedite the process at this point, but
> > should we feel the need, we'll reach out.
> > 
> 
> The approval has come through and the patch has been submitted.
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg10286.html

Looks like it needs some work :)

And why isn't it tagged to go to the 4.10-stable kernel if it really
does fix some systems?

> Note: this is only half of the fix, the second half needs the ACPI subsystem to
> not be frozen to be able to receive this event.

Where is that change?

I'm still worried about 4.10-final, is that going to be broken for these
types of systems?

thanks,

greg k-h