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  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]
Date:	Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:00:42 +0800
From:	"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
	Adam Williamson <awilliam@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/reboot] [PATCH] x86: Try the BIOS reboot method before
 the PCI reboot method

On 2014/4/7 2:40, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> No question. The question at hand is if we should do it after all other
> non-terminal (BIOS, triple) methods have been tried.
> 

The reboot sequence before the change is:
(1) ACPI
(2) KEYBOARD
(3) ACPI
(4) KEYBOARD
(5) TRIPLE

The reboot sequence after the change is:
(1) ACPI
(2) KEYBOARD
(3) ACPI
(4) KEYBOARD
(ADD_1) EFI
(ADD_2) CF9
(ADD_3) BIOS
(5) TRIPLE

Steven's machine exactly hit (5), while CF9 hangs, so we encountered
this regression.

EFI is no question. So, Is everybody okay with the following sequence?
(1) ACPI
(2) KEYBOARD
(3) ACPI
(4) KEYBOARD
(ADD_1) EFI
(5) TRIPLE
(ADD_2) CF9
(ADD_3) BIOS

Thanks,
-Aubrey
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists