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:   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