linux-kernel - RE: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:07:19 -0800
From:	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
To:	"Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, "Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	"Rudolf Marek" <r.marek@...embler.cz>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<lm-sensors@...sensors.org>
Subject: RE: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with ACPI?

Port (and memory) addresses can be dynamically generated by the AML code
and thus, there is no way that the ACPI subsystem can statically predict
any addresses that will be accessed by the AML.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-acpi-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jean Delvare
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:05 PM
> To: Matthew Garrett
> Cc: Pavel Machek; Chuck Ebbert; Rudolf Marek;
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel; lm-sensors@...sensors.org
> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Could the k8temp driver be interfering with
> ACPI?
> 
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:18:40 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 03:10:55PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not familiar with APCI at all so I didn't know, but what you
write
> > > here brings some hope. Would it be possible to parse all the DSDT
code
> > > at boot time and deduce all the ports which ACPI would need to
request
> > > to be safe? Or do we have to wait for the accesses to actually
happen?
> >
> > In theory I /think/ so, but it would probably end up being an
> > overestimate of the coverage actually needed. Trapping at runtime is
> > arguably more elegant?
> 
> It might be more elegant but it won't work. We don't want to prevent
> ACPI from accessing these I/O ports. If we need to choose only one
> "driver" accessing the I/O port, it must be acpi, at leat for now,
> despite the fact that acpi provides very weak hardware monitoring
> capabilities compared to the specific drivers.
> 
> Why would we end up with an overestimation if we check the I/O ports
at
> boot time? Do you have concrete cases in mind?
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Jean Delvare
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi"
in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
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/