linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check

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: <1689760.eY2GhS7V2b@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sat, 03 Aug 2013 03:16:22 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc:	Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: video: improve quirk check

On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
> >> be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
> >> confuse a returned level to mean the index.
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >>   current_level = max_level = 100
> >>   test_level = 0
> >>   returned level = 100
> >>
> >> In this case 100 means the level, not the index, and _BCM failed. But if
> >> the _BCL package is descending, the index of level 0 is also 100, so we
> >> assume _BQC is indexed, when it's not.
> >>
> >> This causes all _BQC calls to return bogus values causing weird behavior
> >> from the user's perspective. For example: xbacklight -set 10; xbacklight
> >> -set 20; would flash to 90% and then slowly down to the desired level
> >> (20).
> >>
> >> The solution is simple; test anything other than the first level (e.g.
> >> 1).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
> >
> > Looks reasonable.
> >
> > Aaron, what do you think?
> 
> Aaron has a similar patch does many more checks. I think we should add
> more checks, but I think those should go into a separate patch.
> 
> This patch alone fixes a real problem, which is rather urgent to fix,
> and I did it this way so it's trivial to review and merge.

And I still would like to know the Aaron's opinion, what's wrong with that?

--
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/