linux-kernel - Re: one more ACPI Error (utglobal-0125): Unknown exception code:0xFFFFFFEA [Re: 2.6.18-rc4-mm3]

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]

Message-Id: <200609130851.16028.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:51:15 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	kmannth@...ibm.com
Cc:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Mattia Dongili <malattia@...ux.it>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: one more ACPI Error (utglobal-0125): Unknown exception  code:0xFFFFFFEA [Re: 2.6.18-rc4-mm3]

On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:27, keith mannthey wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 20:27 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:25 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > >> If we decide that "try HID first, then try CID" is the right thing,
> > >> I think we should figure out how to make that work.  Maybe that
> > >> means extending the driver model somehow.
> > > Don't think it's easy, especially no other bus needs it I guess.
> > 
> > I agree it's probably not easy, but I think having the right
> > semantics is more important than fitting cleanly into the
> > driver model.  But I know that without code, I'm just venting
> > hot air, not contributing to a solution.
> > 
> > How's the ACPI driver model integration going, anyway?  I seem
> > to recall some patches a while back, but I don't think they're
> > in the tree yet.
> > 
> > > Do we really need the memory hotplug device returns pnp0c01/pnp0c02?
> > > What's the purpose?
> > 
> > I don't know.  But I think Keith already determined that a BIOS change
> > is not likely.  I hate to ask for BIOS changes like this because it
> > feels like asking them to avoid broken things in Linux.
> 
>   Ok my motherboard patch was dropped from -mm so I am broken again but
> others are fixed. Is the answer that we do nothing about this issues?   
> 
>   I am pretty sure my SSDT table is valid if someone *cannot* point out
> in the spec where my device is malformed  by having both HID and CID I
> will not be able even start the request to change the BIOS (it would be
> a waste of my time).  Sure having the CID of the memory device may be
> overkill but is it wrong?  

I think that your SSDT is valid.  I can't point to a specific
reference in the spec, but I think the "try _HID first, then try
_CID" strategy is clearly the intent.  Otherwise, there would be
no reason to separate _HID from _CID.

>   Unless someone can show me a alternate solution I am going to push the
> check HID before CID patch to -mm in the next day or two. 

I support this, although I do understand that it will make it more
difficult to integrate ACPI into the driver model because the driver
model currently only does one pass to check whether a driver can claim
a device.

Bjorn
-
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/