linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries

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: <CAJZ5v0hea5xJL3p1L=-Z1azP2wfx8Mu113JC8SgPwP06c58mQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:35:59 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"jason@...edaemon.net" <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT
 GICC entries

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 06/30/2015 11:07 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Hi Al,
>>>
>>> On 18/06/15 23:36, Al Stone wrote:
>>>> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable
>>>> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in
>>>> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long.  But, there is only one definition
>>>> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version.  Hence, when
>>>> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC
>>>> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in
>>>> the wild that have them.
>>>>
>>>> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against
>>>> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1-rc8 does not appear to have this
>>>> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition.
>>>>
>>>> Even though there is precendent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in
>>>> size, this patch set instead tries to verify correctness.  The first patch
>>>> in the set adds macros for easily using the ACPI spec version.  The second
>>>> patch adds the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro that uses the version macros to
>>>> check the GICC subtable only, accounting for the difference in specification
>>>> versions that are possible.  The final patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage
>>>> with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY macro in arm64 code, which is currently the
>>>> only architecture affected.  The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as
>>>> is for all other MADT subtables.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We need to get this series or a patch to remove the check(similar to
>>> ia64) based on what Rafael prefers. Without that, platforms using ACPI
>>> on ARM64 fails to boot with latest mainline. This blocks any testing on
>>> ARM64/ACPI systems.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sudeep
>>
>> I have not received any other feedback than some Reviewed-bys from
>> Hanjun and an ACK from Will for the arm64 patch.
>>
>> And absolutely agreed: this is a blocker for arm64/ACPI, starting with
>> the ACPICA 20150515 patches which appear to have gone in with 4.2-rc1.
>>
>> Rafael?  Ping?
>
> I overlooked the fact that this was needed to fix a recent regression,
> sorry about that.
>
> Actually, if your patch fixes an error introduced by a specific
> commit, it is good to use the Fixes: tag to indicate that.  Which I
> still would like to do, so which commit is fixed by this?
>
>> Do we need these to go through your tree or the arm64
>> tree?  Without this series (or an ia64-like solution), we have ACPI
>> systems in the field that cannot boot.
>
> I'm not quite sure why the definition of BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY has to go
> into include/linux/acpi.h.  Why is it necessary in there?

Like what about defining it in linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h for example?

Rafael
--
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/