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]
Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:20:55 -0800
From:	Jesse Barnes <>
To:	Jiri Slaby <>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,,,,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Thomas Renninger <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] PCI: tune up ICH4 quirk for broken BIOSes

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:55:01 +0100
Jiri Slaby <> wrote:

> On 01/14/2011 05:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2011 03:31:16 am Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 01/14/2011 01:15 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we're back to the question of why we have the ICH4 quirk in
> >>>> the first place, and I don't know the answer to that.
> >>>
> >>> Iirc, there were several laptops that didn't have the ACPI region
> >>> mentioned in any of the regular places, and we'd allocate the PCMCIA
> >>> IO region on top of them. The machine would boot, but if anybody ever
> >>> inserted a PCCard into the machine, the first access to the IO region
> >>> would generally just halt it (because it was trying to read the
> >>> PCCard, but the APCI region decodes first, and then the read from that
> >>> usually put the CPU in a sleep state that it would never wake up from
> >>> for obvious reasons).
> >>>
> >>> So we do want the ICH4 quirk.
> >>
> >> Yes, this is an "official" way how ICH4 (and later) advertises the region.
> > 
> > The quirk is a bug workaround, *not* the "official, planned" way to
> > deal with these regions.  The official way is to use ACPI, because
> > that's a generic way that doesn't require changes for new versions
> > of ICH.
> Ok, I understand that. For non-ACPI setups this is probably the only
> place to look at.
> Anyway, has anybody had a chance to look at the patches? Any comments,
> nacks/acks?

I don't have a problem making the quirk quirkier, but it would be nice
to get rid of the need for it entirely (though we can leave that to
Bjorn :). Can you re-submit these three against my linux-next branch?

Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists