linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mfd: lpc_ich: Do not create iTCO watchdog when WDAT table exists

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:   Wed, 28 Sep 2016 02:09:41 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Peter Tyser <ptyser@...-inc.com>,
        Zha Qipeng <qipeng.zha@...el.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mfd: lpc_ich: Do not create iTCO watchdog when
 WDAT table exists

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 08:41:14 PM Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > 
> > > ACPI WDAT table is the preferred way to use hardware watchdog over the
> > > native iTCO_wdt. Windows only uses this table for its hardware watchdog
> > > implementation so we should be relatively safe to trust it has been
> > > validated by OEMs
> > > 
> > > Prevent iTCO watchdog creation if we detect that there is ACPI WDAT table.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/lpc_ich.c | 4 ++++
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > Applied, thanks.
> 
> Well, I applied this too.

How can you apply this without an MFD Ack?

> And it depends on the [1/4], doesn't it?

Yes, I just found that out myself. :)

Well I only have 4 lines of changes in drivers/mfd/lpc_ich.c, so I
guess it'll be okay to apply this without the fear of conflicts.

Do that end, please apply my:

Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
  
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/lpc_ich.c b/drivers/mfd/lpc_ich.c
> > > index bd3aa4578346..c8dee47b45d9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/lpc_ich.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/lpc_ich.c
> > > @@ -984,6 +984,10 @@ static int lpc_ich_init_wdt(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  	struct resource *res;
> > >  
> > > +	/* If we have ACPI based watchdog use that instead */
> > > +	if (acpi_has_watchdog())
> > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > > +
> > >  	/* Setup power management base register */
> > >  	pci_read_config_dword(dev, priv->abase, &base_addr_cfg);
> > >  	base_addr = base_addr_cfg & 0x0000ff80;
> > 
> > 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog