linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23

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

Message-ID: <475B8446.4010300@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:59:34 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
CC:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23

Robert Hancock wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:20:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:12:57 +0100 Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de> wrote:
>>>> ACPI Exception (exoparg2-0442): AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT, Index
>>>> (0FFFFFFFF) is beyond end of object [20070126]
>>>> ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed
>>>> [\_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.GTF_] (Node c180b990), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>>>> ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed
>>>> [\_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.CHN0.DRV1._GTF] (Node c180b888), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>>>> ata1.01: _GTF evaluation failed (AE 0x300d)
>>
>> 037f6bb79f753c014bc84bca0de9bf98bb5ab169 ought to have fixed this?
>>
> 
> I should think it should have.
> 
> I think we're too aggressive about disabling the libata ACPI support,
> even. One of my laptop's _GTF commands on resume is a DEVICE
> CONFIGURATION FREEZE LOCK command, which gets rejected by the drive
> (maybe it worked on the original Hitachi disk, but I've upgraded it to a
>  newer Samsung). I'd say if the drive returns command aborted on one of
> these, we should just ignore that command and continue to the next one
> without trying to retry or disabling the ACPI support entirely.

Yeap, my pending patchset does exactly that.  It's currently being
tested by but reporters.  I'll soon post the patchset.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/