linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit

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: <CAPcyv4gM8SNLGn+ATELbBoOZWqk80_XYu41z-PDTs-3ONCGLeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:54:58 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@....com>
Cc:     Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi, nfit: fix acpi event notifications for nfit

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@....com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/18/2016 3:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com> wrote:
>>> The nfit driver had an acpi event notification handler, but it never
>>> would've worked because we weren't setting the
>>> ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag in acpi_driver.
>>
>> Let's update the changelog to be helpful for someone implementing a
>> backport or taking this back to a -stable branch.  Something like:
>>
>> Subject: acpi, nfit: fix event notifications
>>
>> Commit 209851649dc4 "acpi: nfit: Add support for hot-add" added
>> support for _FIT notifications, but it neglected to set the
>> ACPI_DRIVER_ALL_NOTIFY_EVENTS flag that acpi_bus_notify() uses to gate
>> notification delivery.
>
> While we're at it, should we update the notifier function to explicitly check
> for event 0x80 before re-evaluating the _FIT?  I'm thinking about some time
> in the future when there might be more than one event.

Yes, good idea.