linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/16] ARM64: ACPI: Check if it runs on Xen to enable or disable ACPI

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, 19 Jan 2016 16:41:11 +0800
From:	Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@...wei.com>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:	<catalin.marinas@....com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
	<ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<stefano.stabellini@...rix.com>, <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	<julien.grall@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	<linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<shannon.zhao@...aro.org>, <peter.huangpeng@...wei.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/16] ARM64: ACPI: Check if it runs on Xen to enable
 or disable ACPI



On 2016/1/18 23:07, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 02:55:24PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> > > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>
>>> > > 
>>> > > When it's a Xen domain0 booting with ACPI, it will supply a /chosen and
>>> > > a /hypervisor node in DT. So check if it needs to enable ACPI.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>
>>> > > ---
>>> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>> > > 
>>> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>> > > index d1ce8e2..4e92be0 100644
>>> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>> > > @@ -67,10 +67,13 @@ static int __init dt_scan_depth1_nodes(unsigned long node,
>>> > >  {
>>> > >  	/*
>>> > >  	 * Return 1 as soon as we encounter a node at depth 1 that is
>>> > > -	 * not the /chosen node.
>>> > > +	 * not the /chosen node, or /hypervisor node when running on Xen.
>>> > >  	 */
>>> > > -	if (depth == 1 && (strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0))
>>> > > -		return 1;
>>> > > +	if (depth == 1 && (strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0)) {
>>> > > +		if (!xen_initial_domain() || (strcmp(uname, "hypervisor") != 0))
>>> > > +			return 1;
>>> > > +	}
>>> > > +
>>> > >  	return 0;
>>> > >  }
>> > 
>> > As this is changing the semantic of an "empty" DT, we should consider
>> > now if there's anything else that might also need to exist in an "empty"
>> > DT. We don't want to change this again in future if we don't have to,
>> > given the compatiblity nightmare that's sure to result.
>> > 
>> > We should also consider if the "hypervisor" node name is sufficient (I
>> > think it is, but let's not assume anything).
>>>From Xen point of view I think it is enough: real hardware is described
> in ACPI anyway and anything hypervisor related can be done via
> hypercalls once Xen support is discovered, for which the hypervisor node
> is sufficient.

Yes, I think the hypervisor node is sufficient for current Xen ACPI support.

-- 
Shannon