linux-kernel - Re: ACPI OSI disaster on latest HP laptops

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: <20080802054204.GB12646@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Sat, 2 Aug 2008 06:42:04 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Christian Kornacker <ckornacker@...e.de>
Subject: Re: ACPI OSI disaster on latest HP laptops - critical temperature shutdown

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 07:36:57PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008, Len Brown wrote:
> > It is better to expose ourselves to the known tested Windows functionality
> > -- even if it seems arbitrary, at least it is tested.  The !Windows case
> > results in running _completely_ untested BIOS code.
> 
> Actually, we should masquerade properly as the latest Windows version
> available for that machine, then.  AFAIK, Windows does not set ALL the OSI
> strings, just one.  We ARE running untested code in some BIOSes because of
> it.

The BIOSes I've tested check _OSI in order of Windows release, which is 
consistent with Windows returning OSI strings for all previous versions. 
Do you have any examples that suggest this isn't the case?

> Maybe it would be better if every ACPICA-using OS defined a
> _OSI(NotWindows), plus the relevant Windows OSI string they want to support,
> and Intel would send word that this string is to be used ONLY to disable all
> Windows bug workarounds, not to activate or deactivate any specific
> functionality?

Not all BIOSes would support this, so we'd need to support the Windows 
workarounds anyway. At that point, there's no real benefit in having 
multiple codepaths.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/