linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2386234.LOj9mo4PX0@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:39:49 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Len.Brown@...el.com, "alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2014/2/28 13:33, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
> >>> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
> >>> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
> >>> pm_power_off function hooked.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |    7 +++++--
> >>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> index b718806..0284d22 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
> >>>  	status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
> >>>  	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> >>>  		sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
> >>
> >> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
> > 
> > We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
> 
> Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?

Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is "supported" if we aren't
going to do anything with it.


> >>
> >>> -		pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> >>> -		pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> >>> +		if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
> >>> +			acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
> >>> +			pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> >>> +			pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> >>> +		}
> >>>  	}
> >>>
> >>>  	supported[0] = 0;
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, 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/