linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add DMI quirk for Intel DP55KG mainboard

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.2.00.1001061504110.4086@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:22:30 -0500 (EST)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Christian Hofstaedtler <ch@...a.at>, x86@...nel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	bruce.w.allan@...el.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add DMI quirk for Intel DP55KG mainboard

> > using _OSI is not "a similar method to Windows".
> > The BIOS does not need to invoke _OSI to determine if
> > it should expose a properly functioning ACPI reset or not.
> > Windows XP simply demanded it, and the box failed WHQL
> > if it did not work.
> 
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/E/7/7E7662CF-CBEA-470B-A97E-CE7CE0D98DC2/WinACPI_OSI.docx 
> was what I was referring to:
> 
> "By using the _OSI method, ASL writers can easily determine the version 
> of the ACPI interfaces that the host operating system supports. This 
> versioning method provides a solution for creating firmware that can 
> support future operating systems and enable the operating system to 
> change behavior based on the requested interface levels."
> 
> We know that this is used for deciding whether or not to block system IO 
> accesses, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's also used to determine 
> other functionality like whether or not the ACPI interface is used for 
> rebooting.

I've looked at _OSI use in over a hundred DSDTs and never
seen run-time re-configuration of reset support.

I do not think the BIOS has a run-time decision to make here.
If a box is designed to support Windows XP and newer, it is
likely that ACPI_RESET is simply valid and XP blindly uses it.
If reset fails, the box doesn't pass WHQL and the box is fixed.
If W2K is run on that box, ACPI_RESET is still valid, just that
W2K chooses to not write to it.

> > Further, there is no _guarantee_ that a BIOS will invoke _OSI
> > at all, let alone a _rule_ for what _OSI() strings the BIOS
> > will choose to query to trigger its Windows specific
> > compatibility hooks -- even if common practice is for
> > a desktop BIOS to evaluate _OSI strings in sequence
> > up throught he most recent version of Windows it
> > knows about...
> 
> It's effectively guaranteed if the system is validated with Windows.

today's common industry practice != future guarantee

We can't rely on blind use of _OSI to mean "new enough", since
it was supported back in W2K era.  That means we have to parse
the OSI strings.  But what happens when a BIOS writer decides to
evaluate _OSI("Windows Future") without evaluating any of the
old strings we know about?  We would disable ACPI reset on such
a future box?

thanks,
-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/