linux-kernel - Re: [discuss] Re: Please pull x86-64 bug fixes

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610060906140.3952@g5.osdl.org>
Date:	Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	discuss@...-64.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: Please pull x86-64 bug fixes

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> we can do a tiny bit better than the current code; some chipsets have
> the address of the MMIO region stored in their config space; so we can
> get to that using the old method and validate the acpi code with that.

Yes. I think trusting ACPI is _always_ a mistake. It's insane. We should 
never ask the firmware for any data that we can just figure out ourselves.

And we should tell all hardware companies that firmware tables are stupid, 
and that we just want to know what the hell the registers MEAN!

I've certainly tried to tell Intel that. I think they may even have heard 
me occasionally.

I can't understand why some people _still_ think ACPI is a good idea..

		Linus
-
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/