linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hHfwpw2h26KJePVCcgd68QFK2mtiffwjpootVn4WtvsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:13:01 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 09/25/2015 05:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 05:26:40 PM Al Stone wrote:

[cut]

>> In particular, I'm not sure if we really need to return
>> -EINVAL from acpi_parse_entries_array() when we find a bad MADT entry or it
>> will be sufficient to simply go to the next entry in that case?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rafael
>
> I see there being two options: (1) return -EINVAL and indicate that the tables
> are incorrect, or (2) print a warning (or something more aggressive?), go to
> the next entry, and hope for the best with the remainder of the MADT subtables.
> The former is consistent with past behavior, I think, and the latter seems to
> me a bit of a gamble.  So, my vote is for (1), the current method; what are you
> thinking these days?

I would be for preserving the past behavior.

I'm a bit concerned that the new checks may trigger on systems where
the old ones didn't, but that is a separete problem.

Thanks,
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/