linux-kernel - RE: ACPI WARNING: at drivers/acpi/tables/tbfadt.c:348acpi_tb_create_local

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:	Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:43:04 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Robert Moore" <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	"Andi Kleen" <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Paprocki" <andrew@...iboo.com>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: ACPI WARNING: at
	drivers/acpi/tables/tbfadt.c:348acpi_tb_create_local_fadt+0x147/0x2f4()

>>> "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com> 17.07.08 19:20 >>>
>So far, in the number of the cases like this that I've seen, it's the v2
>fields that have problems. Perhaps the heuristic should be something
>like "if there is an inconsistency between the v1 and v2 fields, fall
>back to v1". 

While extending the patch to do so, I realize that other v2 fields are
used as-is, no matter whether their bit_width (or other fields) are
wrong. Is that perhaps why hardware/hwregs.c uses hard-coded
constants rather than the specified widths? If so (and if the v1 fields
are considered reliable), shouldn't the v2 ones be sanity-checked
against the v1 ones and then the specified widths be used as intended
by the spec?

Jan

--
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/