linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] - Increase PNP_MAX_PORT. ACPI devices can have a lot IO resource declarations

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: <1184837015.15328.116.camel@queen.suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:23:35 +0200
From:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] - Increase PNP_MAX_PORT. ACPI devices can have a lot
	IO resource declarations

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 15:33 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 July 2007 02:21:14 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 09:49 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Monday 16 July 2007 08:21:07 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > > > PNP0C02 devices normally have a lot more IO port declarations than
> > > > currently defined in PNP_MAX_PORT
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > > 
> > > > I also wonder whether other limits like:
> > > >  #define PNP_MAX_MEM        4
> > > >  #define PNP_MAX_IRQ        2
> > > >  #define PNP_MAX_DMA        2
> > > > could get exceeded with pnpacpi?
> > > 
> > > Definitely.  I think the current limits come from the PNP ISA spec
> > > (sec 4.6).  I don't see similar limits in the PNPBIOS or ACPI specs,
> > > so ideally I think they should be dynamically allocated as you suggest.
> > > 
> > I wanted to implement the dynamic approach and used a dynamically
> > allocated array, filled up from beginning. While this is close to the
> > current implementation I thought this is the easiest sufficient way...
> > (I also only did this for io ports where most mem is wasted).
> > Now I am thinking about hotplug (e.g. if a SSDT with resources gets
> > hot-added, removed)... If a device can vanish, the array must get
> > reordered, not a really well fitting structure, a list (a pnp specific
> > set up, or from include/linux/list.h?) should be better?
> 
> I don't understand the array reordering problem.  Either a device exists
> or it doesn't.  Loading or unloading an SSDT should not change the number
> of resources for devices (except that it might add or remove an entire
> device).
Yes, you are right. I feared there could be cases were single resources
should be able to be removed.
> 
> I think for now, it would be sufficient to increase PNP_MAX_IRQ to 8
> and PNP_MAX_PORT to 32 and be done with it.  I don't think it's worth
> getting more complicated unless we dynamically allocate everything.
Ok.

Thanks,

   Thomas

-
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/