linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] x86, acpi: Initialize ACPI root table list earlier.

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: <1375401251.10300.53.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:54:11 -0600
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, lenb@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
	trenn@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org, jiang.liu@...wei.com,
	wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org, mina86@...a86.com,
	gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com,
	lwoodman@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
	prarit@...hat.com, zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com,
	yanghy@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] x86, acpi: Initialize ACPI root table list
 earlier.

On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 15:06 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> We have split acpi_table_init() into two steps:
> 1. Pares RSDT or XSDT, and initialize acpi_gbl_root_table_list.
>    This step will record all tables' physical address in memory.
> 2. Check acpi initrd table override and install all tables into
>    acpi_gbl_root_table_list.
> 
> This patch does step 1 earlier, right after memblock is ready.
> 
> When memblock_x86_fill() is called to fulfill memblock.memory[],
> memblock is able to allocate memory.
> 
> This patch introduces a new function acpi_root_table_init() to
> do step 1, and call this function right after memblock_x86_fill()
> is called.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
> Reviewed-by: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |   38 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c     |    3 +++
>  drivers/acpi/tables.c       |    7 +++++--
>  include/linux/acpi.h        |    2 ++
>  4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> index 230c8ea..3da5b3c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -1491,6 +1491,28 @@ static struct dmi_system_id __initdata acpi_dmi_table_late[] = {
>  };
>  
>  /*
> + * acpi_root_table_init - Initialize acpi_gbl_root_table_list.
> + *
> + * This function will parse RSDT or XSDT, find all tables' phys addr,
> + * initialize acpi_gbl_root_table_list, and record all tables' phys addr
> + * in acpi_gbl_root_table_list.
> + */
> +void __init acpi_root_table_init(void)

I think acpi_root_table_init() is a bit confusing with
acpi_boot_table_init().  Perhaps, something like
acpi_boot_table_pre_init() or early_acpi_boot_table_init() is better to
indicate that this new function is called before acpi_boot_table_init().

> +{
> +	dmi_check_system(acpi_dmi_table);
> +
> +	/* If acpi_disabled, bail out */
> +	if (acpi_disabled)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser */
> +	if (acpi_table_init()) {
> +		disable_acpi();
> +		return;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
>   *  called from setup_arch(), always.
>   *	1. checksums all tables
> @@ -1511,21 +1533,7 @@ static struct dmi_system_id __initdata acpi_dmi_table_late[] = {
>  
>  void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)

The comment of this function needs to be updated.  For instance, it
describes acpi_table_init(), which you just relocated.

 * acpi_table_init() is separate to allow reading SRAT without
 * other side effects.
 *

>  {
> -	dmi_check_system(acpi_dmi_table);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * If acpi_disabled, bail out
> -	 */
> -	if (acpi_disabled)
> -		return; 

I think this check is still necessary.

Thanks,
-Toshi

--
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/