linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86, acpi: Handle apic/x2apic entries in MADT in correct order

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]

Date:	Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:22:12 +0100
From:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:	Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@...el.com>,
	lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	x86@...nel.org, jason@...edaemon.net
CC:	rjw@...ysocki.net, len.brown@...el.com, pavel@....cz,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86, acpi: Handle apic/x2apic entries in MADT in
 correct order

On 08/09/15 12:08, Lukasz Anaczkowski wrote:
> ACPI specifies the following rules when listing APIC IDs:
> (1) Boot processor is listed first
> (2) For multi-threaded processors, BIOS should list the first logical
>     processor of each of the individual multi-threaded processors in MADT
>     before listing any of the second logical processors.
> (3) APIC IDs < 0xFF should be listed in APIC subtable, APIC IDs >= 0xFF
>     should be listed in X2APIC subtable

[snip]

> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> index ececeac..bc23220 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> @@ -239,6 +239,7 @@ acpi_parse_entries(char *id, unsigned long table_size,
>  	struct acpi_subtable_header *entry;
>  	int count = 0;
>  	unsigned long table_end;
> +	int i;
>  
>  	if (acpi_disabled)
>  		return -ENODEV;
> @@ -269,7 +270,7 @@ acpi_parse_entries(char *id, unsigned long table_size,
>  		for (i = 0; i < proc_num; i++) {
>  			if (entry->type != proc[i].id)
>  				continue;
> -			if (!proc->handler || proc[i].handler(entry, table_end)) {
> +			if (!proc->handler || proc[i].handler(entry, table_end))
>  				return -EINVAL;

This needs to be moved into the right patch, because this is otherwise
not bisectable...

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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/