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: <20100106202918.GA22957@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:29:18 +0000
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.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

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 03:22:30PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:

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

The point isn't that the firmware changes its behaviour - the point is 
that the OS does.

> 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.

And if ACPI_RESET is set but untested (because 2000 never used it)?

> 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?

Potentially, yes. But since such a machine would clearly expect to be 
treated as "Windows Future", we'd be running it in an untested 
configuration anyway.

-- 
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/