linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] platform/x86: Fix check for method instance number

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: <CAHp75VcS2hX=b=2hGj+-N0M-t5DD6WAEhBp6-UdNNv3hBC6R1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:31:09 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
        Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        acpi4asus-user <acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] platform/x86: Fix check for method instance number

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 03:54:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com> wrote:
>> > This patch series fixes remaining mxm-wmi and asus-wmi drivers to evaluate
>> > WMI methods with correct and available instance number. Now all WMI drivers
>> > should call WMI functions with correct instance number and last patch fixes
>> > WMI check for invalid instances. Patch for paeq-wmi is optional as machine
>> > has 10 instances but instance number is ignored at all. But for consistency
>> > with other drivers first instance would be used (instead of second).
>> >
>>
>> I pushed first 3 to testing, which seems to me right thing to do, and
>> left the last one to be ACK by Darren and/or others (I'm not familiar
>> so far with that code).
>
> Reviewed with one question to Pali. Since you merged 1-3, I'll leave 4 to you
> unless you prefer I merge it.

I will do. Thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko