linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions

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: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E886CE93D1C@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:46:50 +0000
From:   "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
CC:     "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        'Len Brown' <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "'linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'devel@...ica.org'" <devel@...ica.org>,
        "'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Box, David E" <david.e.box@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions

Hi,

> From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@...ck-us.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 3:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions
> 
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 07:27:37PM +0000, Moore, Robert wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Moore, Robert
> > > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 10:13 AM
> > > To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>; Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@...el.com>
> > > Cc: Wysocki, Rafael J <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>; Len Brown
> > > <lenb@...nel.org>; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; devel@...ica.org; linux-
> > > kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPICA: Export mutex functions
> > >
> > > There is a model for the drivers to directly acquire an AML mutex
> > > object. That is why the acquire/release public interfaces were added to
> > > ACPICA.
> > >
> > > I forget all of the details, but the model was developed with MS and
> > > others during the ACPI 6.0 timeframe.
> > >
> > >
> > [Moore, Robert]
> >
> >
> > Here is the case where the OS may need to directly acquire an AML mutex:
> >
> > From the ACPI spec:
> >
> > 19.6.2 Acquire (Acquire a Mutex)
> >
> > Note: For Mutex objects referenced by a _DLM object, the host OS may also contend for ownership.
> >
> From the context in the dsdt, and from description of expected use cases for
> _DLM objects I can find, this is what the mutex is used for (to serialize
> access to a resource on a low pin count serial interconnect, aka LPC).
> 
> What does that mean in practice ? That I am not supposed to use it because
> it doesn't follow standard ACPI mutex declaration rules ?
> 

Could you find related _DLMs in your DSDT?
If there is any, could you please post it here for reference?

Thanks
Lv

> Thanks,
> Guenter
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > Other than this case, the OS/drivers should never need to directly acquire an AML mutex.
> > Bob
> >