linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] ACPI / boot: Don't handle SCI on HW reduced platforms

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VdnQxg81aa6F2hEL6ZKLVybwBZH+NH87dXXrLnjDjzGQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 22 Jul 2017 04:52:15 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] ACPI / boot: Don't handle SCI on HW reduced platforms

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 06:04:20 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> As per note in 5.2.9 Fixed ACPI Description Table (FADT) chapter of ACPI
>> specification OSPM will ignore fields related to the ACPI HW register
>> interface, one of which is SCI_INT.
>>
>> Follow the spec and ignore any configuration done for interrupt line
>> defined by SCI_INT if FADT specifies HW reduced platform.

> Can we invalidate acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt somehow for
> acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware?

At some point there INVALID_ACPI_IRQ is used. There is also helper to
check it acpi_sci_irq_valid().

So, we can use that helper instead.

> The checks added below look somewhat arbitrary and it would be good to
> provide some argumentation on why everything is covered by them as needed.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko