linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: Allow ACPI_I2C_OPREGION if I2C is built as a module

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: <CAHp75VdW6nr3NkDVkqY=XQwfPf4Joov3Sw2EkLg6B+WuTZVkVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:46:10 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>, eric.auger.pro@...il.com,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: Allow ACPI_I2C_OPREGION if I2C is built as a module

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 06:56:16AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 03:02:31PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
>> > If I2C is built as a module, ACPI_I2C_OPREGION cannot be set
>> > and any ACPI opregion calls targeting I2C fail with no opregion found.
>> >
>> > This patch allows ACPI_I2C_OPREGION to be enabled both if I2C is
>> > built into the kernel or built as a module.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
>>
>> I recall that we had some discussion until ending up with the current
>> solution. And I finally found it again:
>>
>> http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?12,1001402
>>
>> In any case, I surely want Mika's ack on any change to ACPI related
>> Kconfig symbols. Adding him to CC...
>
> So the problem is/was that what happens if you are in a middle of BIOS
> AML code touching the opregion and someone unloads the opregion handler?
> If you can quarantee nothing bad happens, then I'm fine with the patch :)

I don't think anyone can guarantee this.

I would be fine with patch if and only if it has been tested on
problematic hardware, such as Intel CherryTrail based tablets /
laptops.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko