linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix backlight issues on some Windows 8 systems

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]

Date:	Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:33:00 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, seth.forshee@...onical.com,
	joeyli.kernel@...il.com, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix backlight issues on some Windows 8 systems

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:30:37PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On mar., 2013-06-25 at 22:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Which, as we've already established, you don't - Lenovo broke it. Your 
> > Thinkpad claims to have 100 available levels, and most of them don't 
> > work. The kernel has no way of knowing which levels work and which 
> > don't, so leaving this up to the kernel won't actually fix your system 
> > either.
> 
> I was referring to “standardize the behaviour by leaving up to
> userspace”. A lot of thinkpads (for example) (all the pre-windows 8
> ones) have a perfectly working ACPI backlight interface.

And this patchset won't alter their behaviour.

> Also, if the kernel has no way of knowing which levels work, I fail to
> see how userspace can do better.

It can't. That's why this patchset disables the ACPI interface on 
Windows 8 systems.

> I understand that switching to intel_backlight instead of acpi_video0
> follows what Windows 8 recommends but for me it looks orthogonal to the
> fact ACPI methods now have some awkward (Lenovo) or broken (Dell). I
> mean, it's not the first time firmware people break some kernel
> behavior. I know it's usually not easy to contact them, but shouldn't
> those methods be fixed, instead of somehow blindly switching to graphic
> drivers?

No. The correct answer to all firmware issues is "Are we making the same 
firmware calls as the version of Windows that this hardware thinks it's 
running". If Windows 8 doesn't make these calls, we shouldn't make these 
calls.

-- 
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/