linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI: add "auto" to acpi_enforce

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: <20090210172408.400cacee@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:24:08 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: add "auto" to acpi_enforce_resources

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:32:24 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:57:16PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > 
>   year (I think the info is available, right?) We could
> >> default to strict for systems with year >= 2009. This may still prevent
> >> users from getting the best out of their system, but at least won't
> >> cause a regression for users of older systems where the native driver
> >> has been used so far. I know it's not an ideal solution, but ACPI
> >> implementations aren't ideal either.
> > 
> > The problem with this approach is that we still end up with a large 
> > number of malfunctioning machines. Really, I don't think there's any way 
> > to handle this other than defaulting to strict, letting the default be 
> > changed at run and boot time and printing a message when a driver is 
> > refused permission to bind. Distributions that want to obtain the 
> > previous behaviour can change the default back.

If we expect different distributions / user classes to set a different
default, then it might make sense to make acpi_enforce_resources's
default value a config option?

> For the record we have changed the default to strict in Fedora's 
> development branch, for 2 weeks or so now, including in the recently 
> released Fedora 11 release and we've had 0 complaints so far.

Well, if the number of affected systems is small, this is good news.
But this is only 2 weeks and one distribution, coverage isn't
sufficient to claim anything yet IMHO.

That being said... if there's a common consensus that switching to
strict and dealing with fallouts is the best thing to do, and I'm the
only one objecting to this, then I am ready to admit that I was wrong
and let you proceed.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/