linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi: Use 32-bit FADT values on X86

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903272045260.26419@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:47:55 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: Use 32-bit FADT values on X86

This was already fixed in ACPICA (granted, the patch hasn't gone over the 
list yet)

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=31fbc073a35a017e34840deb9e865a701e986002
--
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> The ACPI specification says that we should use the 64-bit address 
> offsets contained within the FADT if they exist. However, Windows uses 
> the legacy address. Various vendors have left incorrect values in the 
> 64-bit field which then causes problems later. Since the vast majority 
> of machines have never been tested with an OS that uses the 64-bit value 
> by default, we should behave like Windows and ignore the spec by only 
> using the 64-bit address if it contains something that can't be 
> represented in the legacy field. Since system io space is only 16 bits 
> on x86, this should be entirely safe.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> Some question remains as to whether we should be using the 32-bit values 
> from the FADT provided by the XSDT or whether we should just be using 
> the values from the FADT provided by the RSDT. So far every acpidump 
> I've looked at has contained the same values in both, even when the 
> 64-bit values are broken. We know that there's a large number of 
> machines out there that are broken in this respect. We have no evidence 
> whatsoever to believe that there are any machines that this breaks. Can 
> we just apply it and worry about further corner cases later?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c
> index 3636e4f..ad0e858 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c
> @@ -361,9 +361,28 @@ static void acpi_tb_convert_fadt(void)
>  		    ACPI_ADD_PTR(struct acpi_generic_address, &acpi_gbl_FADT,
>  				 fadt_info_table[i].address64);
>  
> -		/* Expand only if the 64-bit X target is null */
> +		/*
> +		 * The ACPI specification says that we should use the
> +		 * 64-bit address offsets if they exists. However,
> +		 * Windows uses the legacy address. Various vendors
> +		 * have left incorrect values in the 64-bit field,
> +		 * which then causes problems later. Since the vast
> +		 * majority of machines have never been tested with an
> +		 * OS that uses the 64-bit value by default, we should
> +		 * behave like Windows and ignore the spec by only
> +		 * using the 64-bit address if it contains something
> +		 * that can't be represented in the legacy
> +		 * field. Since system io space is only 16 bits on
> +		 * x86, this should be entirely safe. We also extend
> +		 * the 32-bit value into the 64-bit one if no 64-bit
> +		 * address is provided.
> +		 */
>  
> -		if (!target64->address) {
> +		if (!target64->address
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> +		    || (target64->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO)
> +#endif
> +			) {
>  
>  			/* The space_id is always I/O for the 32-bit legacy address fields */
>  
> -- 
> 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/