linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 01/17] Xen: ACPI: Hide UART used by Xen

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

Date:	Fri, 1 Apr 2016 21:21:52 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	stefano.stabellini@...rix.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, julien.grall@....com,
	peter.huangpeng@...wei.com, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
	Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@...wei.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 01/17] Xen: ACPI: Hide UART used by Xen

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org> wrote:
> ACPI 6.0 introduces a new table STAO to list the devices which are used
> by Xen and can't be used by Dom0. On Xen virtual platforms, the physical
> UART is used by Xen. So here it hides UART from Dom0.
>
> CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> (supporter:ACPI)
> CC: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> (supporter:ACPI)
> CC: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org (open list:ACPI)
> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/scan.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 5f28cf7..4d2d9eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(acpi_scan_handlers_list);
>  DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_device_lock);
>  LIST_HEAD(acpi_wakeup_device_list);
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_hp_context_lock);

A comment here would be useful explaining that the below is an
exceptional thing an nothing like it is expected to be needed if
foreseeable future.

> +static u64 spcr_uart_addr;
>
>  struct acpi_dep_data {
>         struct list_head node;
> @@ -1453,6 +1454,44 @@ static int acpi_add_single_object(struct acpi_device **child,
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> +static acpi_status acpi_get_resource_memory(struct acpi_resource *ares,
> +                                           void *context)
> +{
> +       struct resource *res = context;
> +
> +       if (acpi_dev_resource_memory(ares, res))
> +               return AE_CTRL_TERMINATE;
> +
> +       return AE_OK;
> +}
> +
> +static bool acpi_device_should_be_hidden(acpi_handle handle)
> +{
> +       acpi_status status;
> +       struct resource res;
> +
> +       /* Check if it should ignore the UART device */
> +       if (!(spcr_uart_addr && acpi_has_method(handle, METHOD_NAME__CRS)))
> +               return false;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * The UART device described in SPCR table is assumed to have only one
> +        * memory resource present. So we only look for the first one here.
> +        */
> +       status = acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__CRS,
> +                                    acpi_get_resource_memory, &res);
> +       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> +               return false;
> +
> +       if (res.start == spcr_uart_addr) {

What about restructuring that a bit.

      if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || res.start != spcr_uart_addr)
            return false;

> +               printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "The UART device @%pa in SPCR table will be hidden\n",
> +                      &res.start);

And maybe use acpi_handle_info() for this message?

Thanks,
Rafael