linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / video / i915: Remove ACPI backlight if firmware expects Windows 8

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: <87d2ofy7li.fsf@intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:29:29 +0300
From:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
Cc:	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	"intel-gfx\@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dri-devel\@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
	"Lee\, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
	Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@...il.com>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	Lee Chun-Yi <jlee@...ell.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / video / i915: Remove ACPI backlight if firmware expects Windows 8

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 11:45 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>
>> Before plunging forward, have you observed any difference between the
>> boot modes? We have reports [1] that the backlight behaviour is
>> different with UEFI vs. UEFI+CSM or legacy boot. So I'm wondering if the
>> acpi_gbl_osi_data >= ACPI_OSI_WIN_8 check in patch 2/2 is the whole
>> story.
>> 
>> Further, if we tell the BIOS we're Windows 8 to use the tested BIOS code
>> paths, what guarantees do we have of UEFI+CSM or legacy boots working?
>
> We have no evidence of Windows behaving differently based on the exposed
> firmware type.

By "behaving differently", do you mean internally adapting to the boot
mode, or exhibiting different behaviour to the user?

We have evidence of the firmware behaving differently (VBT, backlight)
based on the boot mode, all else being equal. We don't adapt to that,
and we fail. I don't know if we should adapt, or do things differently
altogether. I don't even know if Windows 8 works on all boot modes on
the machines in question.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/