linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI device power status

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, 23 Jun 2017 09:46:59 +0930
From:   Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@...t42.net>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     Micha?? K??pie?? <kernel@...pniu.pl>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not update ACPI
 device power status

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:58:43PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:02:35PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:56AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > > Calling acpi_bus_update_power() for ACPI devices FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 is
> > > > pointless as they are not power manageable (neither _PS0 nor _PR0 is
> > > > defined for any of them), which causes their power state to be inherited
> > > > from their parent devices.  Given the ACPI paths of these two devices
> > > > (\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.FJEX, \_SB.FEXT), their parent devices are also not
> > > > power manageable.  These parent devices will thus have their power state
> > > > initialized to ACPI_STATE_D0, which in turn causes the power state for
> > > > both FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 to always be ACPI_STATE_D0 ("on").
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > How confident are we that all implementations of these two ACPI devices lack
> > > _PS0 and _PR0 ?
> > 
> > I looked at DSDT dumps of four different Fujitsu laptops released in the
> > past ten years or so for which at least one of these two ACPI devices is
> > present and found no traces of either of these methods being defined for
> > them.  I do not think we have a way of ensuring that the above holds
> > true for every other model out there, but I will point out that
> > fujitsu-laptop is the only user of acpi_bus_update_power() outside of
> > drivers/acpi.
> 
> OK, thanks. Queueing to testing.

Thanks.  In case it was missed, I supplied my reviewed-by message and
sign-off in an earlier post.

Regards
  jonathan