linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep

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: <51CB291E02000078000E0DFB@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:47:10 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Ben Guthro" <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com>
Cc:	"Gang Wei" <gang.wei@...el.com>,
	<tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"Rafaell J . Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced
 hardware sleep

>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:55, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 26.06.13 at 16:06, Ben Guthro <benjamin.guthro@...rix.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c
>>> @@ -273,7 +273,8 @@ static void tboot_copy_fadt(const struct acpi_table_fadt 
> *fadt)
>>>               offsetof(struct acpi_table_facs, firmware_waking_vector);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> -static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control)
>>> +static int tboot_sleep(u8 sleep_state, u32 pm1a_control, u32 pm1b_control,
>>> +                    u8 extended)
>>
>> I don't see why this couldn't remain "bool" - the only complain was
>> that ACPI CA shouldn't use it.
> 
> I changed it, in order to keep the prototypes consistent.
> Having the function pointer be defined with one signature in the
> acpica code, and another in the os implementation seems like a
> maintenance problem.

Of course the first patch would need adjustments too: The function
pointer would also want to use bool then. Again - it's only the ACPI
CA code that wants to get away without using bool/true/false.

Jan

--
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/