| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:00:57 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: ykzhao <yakui.zhao@...el.com> Cc: Crane Cai <crane.cai@....com>, "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>, "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: add driver for SMBus Control Method Interface On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 05:43:22PM +0800, ykzhao wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 14:02 +0800, Crane Cai wrote: > > This driver supports the SMBus Control Method Interface. It needs BIOS declare > > ACPI control methods via SMBus Control Method Interface Spec. > It seems that SM bus control is realized in BIOS. And OS can use the > given control method interface to access it. > Will this controller be accessed directly directly BIOS? > If it can be accessed by BIOS, how to resolve the conflict between BIOS > and OS? It's being accessed via ACPI methods, so the vendors have the opportunity to implement proper locking. > In fact we see the conflict on some boxes. The SMbus controller will be > accessed by BIOS. If the corresponding driver is loaded for the SMBUS > controller, there exists the potential risk. In such case we will hide > the SMbus controller or not load the device driver for it. I don't think that's a risk in this case. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists