linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform

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:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:55:07 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>, mchehab@...nel.org,
        tony.luck@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform_list()

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:53:48 AM CEST Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:54:43PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > ACPI OEM ID / OEM Table ID / Revision can be used to identify
> > a platform based on ACPI firmware info.  acpi_blacklisted(),
> > intel_pstate_platform_pwr_mgmt_exists(), and some other funcs,
> > have been using similar check to detect a list of platforms
> > that require special handlings.
> > 
> > Move the platform check in acpi_blacklisted() to a new common
> > utility function, acpi_match_platform_list(), so that other
> > drivers do not have to implement their own version.
> > 
> > There is no change in functionality.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/blacklist.c |   83 ++++++++--------------------------------------
> >  drivers/acpi/utils.c     |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/acpi.h     |   19 +++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > index b9d956c..0a9e597 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > @@ -816,3 +816,39 @@ static int __init acpi_backlight(char *str)
> >  	return 1;
> >  }
> >  __setup("acpi_backlight=", acpi_backlight);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * acpi_match_platform_list - Check if the system matches with a given list
> > + * @plat: pointer to acpi_platform_list table terminated by a NULL entry
> > + *
> > + * Return the matched index if the system is found in the platform list.
> > + * Otherwise, return a negative error code.
> > + */
> > +int acpi_match_platform_list(const struct acpi_platform_list *plat)
> > +{
> > +	struct acpi_table_header hdr;
> > +	int idx = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (acpi_disabled)
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > +	for (; plat->oem_id[0]; plat++, idx++) {
> > +		if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_get_table_header(plat->table, 0, &hdr)))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		if (strncmp(plat->oem_id, hdr.oem_id, ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		if (strncmp(plat->oem_table_id, hdr.oem_table_id, ACPI_OEM_TABLE_ID_SIZE))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		if ((plat->pred == all_versions) ||
> > +		    (plat->pred == less_than_or_equal && hdr.oem_revision <= plat->oem_revision) ||
> > +		    (plat->pred == greater_than_or_equal && hdr.oem_revision >= plat->oem_revision) ||
> > +		    (plat->pred == equal && hdr.oem_revision == plat->oem_revision))
> 
> If you align the second part of the test like this:
> 
>              if ((plat->pred == all_versions) ||
>                  (plat->pred == less_than_or_equal	&& hdr.oem_revision <= plat->oem_revision) ||
>                  (plat->pred == greater_than_or_equal	&& hdr.oem_revision >= plat->oem_revision) ||
>                  (plat->pred == equal			&& hdr.oem_revision == plat->oem_revision))
> 
> it gets maximally readable. But I'd leave that up to Rafael when committing
> - no need to send another version.
> 
> Other than that:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>

OK

So what about the [3-5/5] in this series?

My current plan is to apply them too and expose a branch with them, can I
go ahead with that?

Thanks,
Rafael