linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] Subject: Prevent acpi_run_osc from using NULL objects (was: Re: Oops in ACPI with git latest)

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]

Date:	Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:43:59 -0700
From:	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Subject: Prevent acpi_run_osc from using NULL objects
 (was: Re: Oops in ACPI with git latest)

Yes, we will see.

Certainly, in this case it was helpful to have the warning up front that there was no return value.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Len Brown [mailto:lenb@...nel.org]
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:27 PM
>To: Moore, Robert
>Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; James Bottomley; Jesse Barnes; linux-
>acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel
>Subject: RE: [PATCH] Subject: Prevent acpi_run_osc from using NULL objects
>(was: Re: Oops in ACPI with git latest)
>
>
>
>> We've just recently deployed a new module that validates the inputs and
>outputs
>> for the predefined ACPI methods (Those that start with underscore).
>>
>> That is the source of these messages:
>>
>> > > ACPI Warning (nspredef-0252): \_SB_.PCI0._OSC: Parameter count
>mismatch - ASL declared 5, expected 4 [20080926]
>> > > ACPI Error (nspredef-0163): \_SB_.PCI0._OSC: Missing expected return
>value [20080926]
>>
>> For the initial version of this module, we only output messages when the
>inputs and/or
>> outputs don't match the requirements of the ACPI specification.
>>
>> We can change this to returning exceptions in the future.
>
>I expect we're going to have a bunch of false positives with this one,
>and indeed may need to even pare the warnings back to only
>when CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG, or acpi=strict or something.
>
>-Len
--
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/