linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 02/10] acpi: install SSDT tables from initrd

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: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E883BB66BBD@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:15:06 +0000
From:	"Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>
To:	"Purdila, Octavian" <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"Matt Fleming" <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"Wolfram Sang" <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Tirdea, Irina" <irina.tirdea@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 02/10] acpi: install SSDT tables from initrd

Hi,

> From: linux-acpi-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Octavian Purdila
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/10] acpi: install SSDT tables from initrd
> 
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@...el.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> From: Octavian Purdila [mailto:octavian.purdila@...el.com]
> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/10] acpi: install SSDT tables from initrd
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Octavian Purdila
> >> <octavian.purdila@...el.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@...el.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> IMO, there is already a similar function upstreamed:
> >> >>
> >>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c85c
> >> c81
> >> >> Could it work for your use case?
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it is basically the same.
> >> >
> >> > The only difference is on how we handle taint. I think we should use a
> >> > new taint for overlays and that we don't need to disable lockdep.
> >> >
> >> > BTW, why is lockdep disabled when we override?
> >>
> >> The other thing I forgot to mention is that I think we should allow
> >> installing new tables even if CONFIG_ACPI_INITRD_TABLE_OVERRIDE is not
> >> selected. IMO the override and overlay functionality is different,
> >> with the latter being more then a debug option.
> > [Lv Zheng]
> > I don't think so. The initrd override mechanism is not dependent on
> CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG.
> > According to the spec, we can allow a higher versioning same table (same
> table sig, table id, table oem id) to override the old tables as a patching
> functionality.
> > So both the functionalities are not debug options and serve for the same
> purpose from this point of view.
> > And IMO that's why the initrd override mechanism needn't be dependent on
> CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG.
> >
> 
> The problem is that CONFIG_ACPI_INITRD_TABLE_OVERRIDE is presented as
> a debug option in Documentation/initrd_table_override.txt and most
> distributions are not selecting it which makes it hard to use it in
> practice.
> 
> > I'm really OK with removing the acpi_table_taint() for
> CONFIG_ACPI_INITRD_TABLE_OVERRIDE but leaving some info messages
> indicating the table upgrades.
> > I don't think this mechanism is unsafe.
> > It happens during a initialization step occurring before the table is loaded and
> hence should be safe even the synchronization is not so robust in ACPICA.
> > And with the revision support added, we should be able to allow vendors to
> update the buggy tables.
> > That means the tables may be originated from the safe sources - the vendors.
> >
> >>
> >> I will prepare a patch for the next version of the series to decouple
> >> installing new tables from CONFIG_ACPI_INITRD_TABLE_OVERRIDE.
> > [Lv Zheng]
> > I don't think they need to be decoupled.
> > The use case is:
> > If there is an ACPI table in initrd image and:
> > 1. if the table's revision is higher than the existing one, override the existing
> one;
> > 2. if the table is a brand new one, install it.
> >
> 
> The implementation will stay the same of course, I was just suggesting
> to move CONFIG_ACPI_INITRD_TABLE_OVERRIDE in
> acpi_os_physical_table_override to allow new tables to be loaded even
> if the option is not selected.
[Lv Zheng] 
This sounds reasonable.
Or you can rename it to CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE and make it default 'y'.
Also you need to remove acpi_table_taint() which is not so useful now.

Thanks and best regards
-Lv