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: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 22:25:48 +0000 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, 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? Hi! > > > 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? > > > > ACPI will often describe large operation regions, but won't necessarily > > touch all of them. Effectively, every codepath would have to be walked > > through at boot time and checked for io access. > > Is there anything preventing us from doing such a walk and pre-allocate > all the I/O ranges? I am not familiar with the ACPI code at all, would > you possibly propose a patch doing that? ACPI AML is probably turing-complete: I'm afraid you are trying to solve the halting problem (-> impossible). Pavel > > If we can't do that, the overestimation approach might still work. I > wonder if it would cause problems in practice. If it does, we're back > to Pavel's AML lock. > > -- > Jean Delvare -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists