linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use

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: <CABo9ajD5GJY7MrMjQc3hE=4tpPKpeceMtVEHwCwgjrvJUYjLvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:53:05 -0500
From:   Tyler Baicar <baicar.tyler@...il.com>
To:     okaya@...nel.org
Cc:     mr.nuke.me@...il.com, helgaas@...gle.com, austin_bolen@...l.com,
        alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com, keith.busch@...el.com,
        Shyam_Iyer@...l.com, lukas@...ner.de, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, ruscur@...sell.cc,
        sbobroff@...ux.ibm.com, oohall@...il.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:49 PM Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
> > I've asked around a few people at Dell and they unanimously agree that
> > _OSC is the correct way to determine ownership of AER. In linux, we
> > use the result of _OSC to enable AER services, but we use HEST to
> > determine AER ownership. That's inconsistent. This series drops the
> > use of HEST in favor of _OSC.
> >
> > [1]https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/15/62
>
> This change breaks the existing systems that rely on the HEST table
> telling the operating system about firmware first presence.
>
> Besides, HEST table has much more granularity about which PCI component
> needs firmware such as global/device/switch.
>
> You should probably circulate these ideas for wider consumption in UEFI
> forum as UEFI owns the HEST table definition.

I agree with Sinan, this will break existing systems, and the granularity of the
HEST definition is more useful than the single bit in _OSC.