linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] ACPI / OSL: Allow PCI to be disabled

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: <6644defb-9199-6467-6e3e-8ce552b56f87@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:22:25 -0500
From:   Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] ACPI / OSL: Allow PCI to be disabled

On 12/11/2018 5:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> AFAIK, ACPI spec says that AML code running on non-existing op-regions to be
>> discarded last time I checked.
> I guess you mean "disregarded"?
> 

I have seen Linux complain about reads/writes to non-existing I2C opregions
before as a read/write failure for every single AML transaction. I was under the
impression that we didn't care.

> So the spec appears to expect the OS to silently ignore the failures
> in those cases, so why should an error be returned?
> 

I can certainly return success for this case when CONFIG_PCI is not present.

>> I know Linux is noisy about these.