linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 4/9] acpi/arm64: Add GTDT table parse driver

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 21:58:01 +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

On 11/11/2016 09:46 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> 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?

OK, I think you are referring to "we don't need the secure interrupt",
correct me if I'm wrong (still in jet lag...).

Thanks
Hanjun