linux-kernel - Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <561CC441.6090003@arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:43:45 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Pat Erley <pat-lkml@...ey.org>, Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	patches@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity
 checks



On 12/10/15 20:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44:52 AM Sudeep Holla wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict
>> it to some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force
>> vendors to fix their ACPI tables at-least in future.
>
> No, we can't force vendors to fix their ACPI tables.  This is
> completely unrealistic.
>

No, I was referring to the future platforms *only*

> We simly need to deal with the bugs in the ACPI tables in the
> kernel.
>

Yes sadly true for existing systems, but if we now place a check for
ACPIv6.0 and above, we might avoid seeing such broken tables sometime in
future once the kernel with this check in place is used for validation.

>> It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to
>> build those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built
>> in many ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools.
>
> As I said to Al, we need those checks in firmware test suites.
> Having them in the kernel is OK too, but they should cause warnings
> to be printed to the kernel log instead of causing the kernel to
> panic.
>

Agreed

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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/