linux-kernel - Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.34-rc6

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.2.00.1005071618410.901@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 7 May 2010 16:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull request] ACPI patches for 2.6.34-rc6



On Sat, 8 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Saturday 08 May 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 8 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > > On Friday 07 May 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Btw, why don't we just force the SCI_EN by hand?
> > > 
> > > Because there are boxes that are broken right away by this.
> > > 
> > > I have one on my desk in front of me. :-)
> > 
> > Also if we check whether it was already set before?
> 
> Yes.

I don't think you understood the question.

If we check whether it was already set before, we wouldn't _do_ it by 
hand.

> > The thing is, if that bit is clear (_after_ we've done the regular ACPI 
> > setup), the box can't work correctly as far as I know.
> 
> That's correct.  But on that particular box acpi_enable() is necessary to
> make things work.  Setting SCI_EN by hand makes it hang solid.

Let me explain what I think we should do with actual code:

	acpi_enable();
	if (test_if_that_f_cking_bit_still_isnt_set)
		set_it_by_hand();

wouldn't that work on your box? The acpi_enable() seems to work for you, 
so it wouldn't actually ever set it by hand. 

But the problem is that on a number of boxes, acpi_enable() apparently 
doesn't do what it should do. Because the stupid BIOS "knows" it is 
already in ACPI mode, but it forgot to actually set the bit!

			Linus
--
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/