linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support

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: <3046890.jAXAYeBPWQ@wuerfel>
Date:	Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:14:58 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com, Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support

On Thursday 04 September 2014 12:10:28 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 03.09.2014 20:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 September 2014 22:57:51 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> +       /* Collect CPU base addresses */
> >> +       count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
> >> +                                  gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
> >> +                                  ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
> >> +                                  ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
> >> +       if (count < 0) {
> >> +               pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
> >> +               return -EFAULT;
> >> +       } else if (!count) {
> >> +               /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
> >> +               struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
> >> +
> >> +               if (!madt->address)
> >> +                       return -EFAULT;
> >> +
> >> +               cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
> >> +       }
> >
> > After I read through ACPI-5.1 section 5.2.12.14, I wonder if this is the
> > best way to treat a missing ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT table.
> >
> > Do we expect to see those in practice? It seems like using the x86 local
> > APIC address as a fallback for the GIC address is not something we
> > should do unless we absolutely have to support a system that doesn't
> > have the GIC table.
> 
> No, we do not expect and hopefully there will be no such 
> 
> But, we are trying to be as much as possible inline with 5.1 spec, 
> 5.2.12.14 says:
> [...]
> If provided here (CPU physical base address), the "Local Interrupt 
> Controller Address" field in the MADT must be ignored by the OSPM.
> [...]
> 

Yes, that's what I saw. So ignoring it all the time is fine, right?
Presumably the madt->address field is only referenced here because
some pre-5.1 implementations used to do that.

	Arnd
--
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/