linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2] x86, ACPI, irq: Add a quirk to override SCI polarity for HyperV

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1508191039470.3873@nanos>
Date:	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:40:19 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Nick Meier <nmeier@...rosoft.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2] x86, ACPI, irq: Add a quirk to override SCI polarity
 for HyperV

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Jiang Liu wrote:
> > On 2015/8/19 14:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, the regression at hand has just shown that the assertion in the
> > > changelog of that commit ("no need for for special treatment for GSI
> > > used by ACPI SCI") does not really hold.  So, if the only motivation
> > > for it was to get rid of one extra check in mp_unregister_gsi()
> > > (mp_register_gsi() still needs to check if it is dealing with the SCI
> > > anyway), I'd vote for reverting it.
> > Hi Rafael,
> > 	The motivation is to treat SCI as normal IOAPIC interrupt so
> > we could enforce stricter pin attribute checking. Now it does reveal
> > flaws in ACPI BIOS implementations, but we ran into trouble about how to
> > handle those flaws:(
> 
> The intent of this change is entirely correct, though it seems that
> reality of ACPI is just different.
> 
> To be on the safe side of things, I agree with Rafael that we should
> revert that patch instead of introducing a single platform quirk.

Jiang,

can you please prepare a revert patch for this?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/