linux-kernel - Re: pcibios_scanned needs to be set in ACPI? (was Re: 2.6.25-rc5: Reported regressions from 2.6.24)

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]

Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Subject: Re: pcibios_scanned needs to be set in ACPI?  (was Re: 2.6.25-rc5:
 Reported regressions from 2.6.24)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> Ok, I think I got it.  And it looks like an ACPI bug, but one that we
> might have been ignoring for a long time...

I still think that the fact that it regressed in that PCI patch means that 
there is simply something wrong with the patch. At the very least that 
patch changed behaviour, which was *not* what it was claiming it was 
doing.

I do think it's triggered by the "acpi=noirq" setting: that means that 
ACPI *won't* disable the legacy scan. Now, admittedly that's a really odd 
thing to do, and I think it's really strange how pci_acpi_init() does that

	pcibios_scanned++;

in a place where it is not actually scanning the bus, so I do agree that 
ACPI is doing something really odd here, but the fact is, this code all 
used to work.

Can we please just fix the regression caused by that offending patch?  In 
other words: why did that patch change behaviour AT ALL?

Quite frankly, we're too late in the game to say "this exposed some other 
long-time bug". That *particular* patch needs to be fixed, or reverted. We 
can look at changing ACPI in 2.6.26, not in -rc6.

				Linus
--
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/