linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata_acpi: A different strategy for using ACPI information

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070704104954.16812248@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:49:54 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jeff@...zik.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata_acpi: A different strategy for using ACPI
 information

> Looks fairly reasonable to me. However, I suspect any use of _GTM is 
> somewhat dangerous (at least after the resume) unless we use the _STM 
> and _GTF methods in the proper sequence when resuming. (Is that in the 
> -mm tree now?)

Yes - and we only use it in these drivers to check for cable evidence not
for anything more serious.

> speed we give it is valid, since there is no sane way for the function 
> to indicate failure. (Thus the problem with the "cram in all possible 
> values to see what it supports" strategy for determining mode limits..)

The spec I have says it'll hand back the mode it actually uses which is
effectively a solution for 'failure'
-
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/