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:	Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:11:07 +0800
From:	Hanjun Guo <>
To:	Catalin Marinas <>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	Mark Rutland <>,
	Olof Johansson <>,
	"" <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	"" <>,
	Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Sudeep Holla <>,
	"" <>,
	Jason Cooper <>,
	Marc Zyngier <>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <>,
	Daniel Lezcano <>,
	Mark Brown <>, Rob Herring <>,
	Robert Richter <>,
	Lv Zheng <>,
	Robert Moore <>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <>,
	Liviu Dudau <>,
	Randy Dunlap <>,
	Charles Garcia-Tobin <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Al Stone <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

On 2015年01月05日 19:05, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 09:39:24AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2014年12月25日 01:18, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> [...]
>>> In addition to the above and _DSD requirements/banning, I would also add
>>> some clear statements around:
>>> _OSC: only global/published capabilities are allowed. For
>>> device-specific _OSC we need a process or maybe we can ban them entirely
>>> and rely on _DSD once we clarify the process.
>>> _OSI: firmware must not check for certain _OSI strings. Here I'm not
>>> sure what we would have to do for ARM Linux. Reporting "Windows" does
>>> not make any sense but not reporting anything can, as Matthew Garrett
>>> pointed out, can be interpreted by firmware as "Linux". In addition to
>>> any statements in this document, I suggest you patch
>>> drivers/acpi/acpica/utosi.c accordingly, maybe report "Linux" for ARM
>>> and print a kernel warning so that we notice earlier.
>>> ACPI_OS_NAME: this is globally defined as "Microsoft Windows NT". It
>>> doesn't make much sense in the ARM context. Could we change it to
>>> "Linux" when CONFIG_ARM64?

I think we can introduce a Kconfig such as CONFIG_ACPI_OS_NAME_LINUX,
selected by ARM64 and change ACPI_OS_NAME to "Linux" when
CONFIG_ACPI_OS_NAME_LINUX defined. (we can not add CONFIG_ARM64 in
ACPICA code directly since it will be used by windows too)

some code like below:

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index b1f9a20..de567a3 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
  config ARM64
         def_bool y
+       select ACPI_OS_NAME_LINUX if ACPI
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
index 8951cef..11a10ac 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
@@ -369,6 +369,10 @@ config ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY

           If you are unsure what to do, do not enable this option.

+       bool "Using Linux for _OS method" if EXPERT
+       def_bool n
  source "drivers/acpi/apei/Kconfig"

  config ACPI_EXTLOG
diff --git a/include/acpi/acconfig.h b/include/acpi/acconfig.h
index 5a0a3e5..db5e13e 100644
--- a/include/acpi/acconfig.h
+++ b/include/acpi/acconfig.h
@@ -69,7 +69,11 @@
   * code that will not execute the _OSI method unless _OS matches the 
   * below.  Therefore, change this string at your own risk.
  #define ACPI_OS_NAME                    "Microsoft Windows NT"
+#define ACPI_OS_NAME                    "Linux"

  /* Maximum objects in the various object caches */

diff --git a/include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h 
index 1ba7c19..45d51d2 100644
--- a/include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h
+++ b/include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h
@@ -69,6 +69,10 @@

  #include <linux/string.h>
  #include <linux/kernel.h>
  #include <linux/ctype.h>

>> We will work on this both on ASWG and linux ACPI driver side, as Dong
>> and Charles pointed out, _OSI things can be solved in ACPI spec, when
>> that is done, we can modify the kernel driver to fix the problems above.
> Which driver?

the ACPICA core driver as you suggested, sorry for the confusion.

> What about ACPI_OS_NAME? Would you suggest it is fine to report
> "Microsoft Windows NT" on an ARM system? That _OS_ not _OSI.

No, not at all. I prefer "Linux"
In include/acpi/acconfig.h, when ACPI_OS_NAME defined, it says:
"OS name, used for the _OS object.  The _OS object is essentially
for some legacy reasons, we needed  "Microsoft Windows NT", but ACPI
for ARM64 on linux is totally new, I think we can change it to
"Linux" when CONFIG_ARM64 as you suggested.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists