linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pci: Don't enable aspm before drivers have had a chance to veto it

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: <20100615153256.GA20309@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:32:56 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
To:	Tomas Henzl <thenzl@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: Don't enable aspm before drivers have had a
	chance to veto it

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 05:29:02PM +0200, Tomas Henzl wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 05:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 05:11:59PM +0200, Tomas Henzl wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> Matthew, isn't it so that the POLICY_DEFAULT will pass the above test
> >> and possibly switch the ASPM on?
> >>     
> > Yes. We assume that the BIOS authors aren't actively malicious.
> >   
> I originally thought your patch is about not enabling ASPM on broken 
> hardware (bios included) before the driver has a chance to change it.

Heh. No, if the BIOS set up ASPM on the controller, it seems like it's 
safe to do the same. That's been the default behaviour of upstream for 
some time now.

-- 
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/