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.2.00.1005111031260.3711@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 11 May 2010 10:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
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 Tue, 11 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 
> I've now checked the behaviour of Windows. It turns out that it never 
> makes the ACPI enable SMM call on resume. This is consistent with 
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13745 which shows a bug 
> being introduced by us making the enable call in the first place. 
> Merging my patch and removing the blacklist would re-break these 
> machines. Instead, we should just unconditionally set SCI_EN since this 
> is the tested configuration. I'll send a followup patch.

Hmm. But that's the thing that Rafael claims doesn't work on his machine. 

Maybe windows does something else? Or do you _see_ windows doing that 
write?

Note that our acpi_enable() won't do anything either if the machine comes 
up in ACPI mode, so maybe you checked the behavior on that kind of 
machine, and Windows does the same? IOW, if acpi_hw_get_mode() already 
returns ACPI_SYS_MODE_ACPI, the whole thing is a no-op.

Finally, it's possible that we really should just write the dang SCI_EN 
bit directly, but that what we do wrong is that doing so with

	acpi_write_bit_register()

will write it _even_if_ the bit was already set. That could explain 
Rafael's problems too - writing the register directly may be the 
RightThing(tm), but writing it if the bit was already set may well cause 
some confusion.

				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/