linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/acpi: take rsdp address for boot params if available

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: <20171208112643.iiov5ztp7eq43hh7@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:26:43 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        x86@...nel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, hpa@...or.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/acpi: take rsdp address for boot params if
 available


* Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:

> On 08/12/17 08:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > acpi_physical_address acpi_arch_get_root_pointer(void)
> > {
> > 	return boot_params.hdr.acpi_rsdp_addr;
> > }
> > 
> > 4)
> > 
> > Add this to arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h:
> > 
> > extern acpi_physical_address acpi_arch_get_root_pointer(void);
> 
> Uuh, this leads to problems for files including <asm/acpi.h> directly:
> acpi_physical_address won't be defined, and including <acpi/actypes.h>
> from arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h will lead to:
> 
> #error unknown ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH
> 
> This can only be avoided by including <linux/acpi.h> from <asm/acpi.h>
> which seems to be the wrong layering.
> 
> So I could:
> 
> a) modify the sources including <asm/acpi.h> to use <linux/acpi.h>
>    instead
> b) don't use acpi_physical_address but either u64 or unsigned long.
> c) ?
> 
> What would be your preference?

Would it help if you put the prototype into linux/acpi.h perhaps? It's a generic 
facility in principle, even if only used by x86 at the moment.

Thanks,

	Ingo