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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 21:46:29 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, fu.wei@...aro.org CC: rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de, marc.zyngier@....com, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, sudeep.holla@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, rruigrok@...eaurora.org, harba@...eaurora.org, cov@...eaurora.org, timur@...eaurora.org, graeme.gregory@...aro.org, al.stone@...aro.org, jcm@...hat.com, wei@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, leo.duran@....com, wim@...ana.be, linux@...ck-us.net, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, tn@...ihalf.com, christoffer.dall@...aro.org, julien.grall@....com Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 4/9] acpi/arm64: Add GTDT table parse driver Hi Mark, Sorry for the late reply. On 10/21/2016 12:37 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi, > > As a heads-up, on v4.9-rc1 I see conflicts at least against > arch/arm64/Kconfig. Luckily git am -3 seems to be able to fix that up > automatically, but this will need to be rebased before the next posting > and/or merging. > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:17:12AM +0800, fu.wei@...aro.org wrote: >> +static int __init map_gt_gsi(u32 interrupt, u32 flags) >> +{ >> + int trigger, polarity; >> + >> + if (!interrupt) >> + return 0; > > Urgh. > > Only the secure interrupt (which we do not need) is optional in this > manner, and (hilariously), zero appears to also be a valid GSIV, per > figure 5-24 in the ACPI 6.1 spec. > > So, I think that: > > (a) we should not bother parsing the secure interrupt > (b) we should drop the check above > (c) we should report the spec issue to the ASWG Sorry, I willing to do that, but I need to figure out the issue here. What kind of issue in detail? do you mean that zero should not be valid for arch timer interrupts? Thanks Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists