linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] ACPI: Provide support for ACPI table adding via OS

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: <3327021.IBYDWO02Gb@skinner>
Date:	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:22:58 +0100
From:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, devel@...ica.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, ck@...rad-kostecki.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rjw@...ysocki.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ACPI: Provide support for ACPI table adding via OS

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:51:07 PM H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/18/2014 10:44 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:27:23 AM H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Why can't you add SSDTs? It would be particularly useful.
> > 
> > There are 2 ways how ACPI tables get added:
> >    - Via pointer from a root table (XSDT or RSDT iirc)
> >    - Via load statement inside of ACPI context when ACPI BIOS
> >    
> >      code gets executed (iirc the physical address is passed).
> > 
> > The latter is only for SSDTs.
> > The problem is that you if you add an SSDT early, it might
> > have been intended for overriding when an SSDT gets dynamically
> > loaded later when the system is up which is particular useful as
> > well if you want to debug this specific BIOS table.
> > 
> > This could be workarounded via a boot param:
> > acpi=allow_ssdt_adding
> > But this is not nice. Maybe someone has a more elegant idea.
> > Something could still be added if someone is really needing this.
> 
> Since adding SSDTs is one of the things I really can imagine one would
> do, I think we need to figure out how to do that.  I would think that
> overriding would be the exception case.

You can always paste new code into the DSDT. It is effectively the same
than adding a new SSDT table.
The other way around, modifying or deleting broken code in a BIOS
provided SSDT needs overriding.

So in fact adding SSDTs is not necessary at all.
It would be a nice add-on, but it's not even worth introducing
an extra boot param or whatever confusion.
A hint in Documentation that adding additional ASL (ACPI Source Language)
code to the DSDT would be the same than creating and adding a new
SSDT table which is not possible should be enough.

The whole thing will always taint the kernel and is meant for
debugging only anyway.

   Thomas
--
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/