| 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: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 00:01:01 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, 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 Friday, 6 October 2006 18:07, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > 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.. I violently agree. Rafael -- You never change things by fighting the existing reality. R. Buckminster Fuller - 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