linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: Introduce acpi_load_table_with

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:   Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:20:12 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Nikolaus Voss <nv@...n.de>
To:     "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
cc:     "Schmauss, Erik" <erik.schmauss@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ferry Toth <fntoth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: Introduce acpi_load_table_with_index()

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Shevchenko, Andriy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 03:07:34PM +0300, Shevchenko, Andriy wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:47:01AM +0200, Nikolaus Voss wrote:
>>> For unloading an ACPI table, it is necessary to provide the
>>> index of the table. The method intended for dynamically
>>> loading or hotplug addition of tables, acpi_load_table(),
>>> does not provide this information, so a new function
>>> acpi_load_table_with_index() with the same functionality,
>>> but an optional pointer to the loaded table index is introduced.
>>>
>>> The new function is used in the acpi_configfs driver to save the
>>> index of the newly loaded table in order to unload it later.
>>
>> I'll test it later, though couple of remarks:
>> - would it make sense to provide a counter part helper for unloading? Now it
>>   looks a bit inconsistent in configfs when we use acpi_load_*() vs.
>>   acpi_tb_*() in remove.

Yes, IMO it would make sense, but it is an ACPICA API change. Bob, what's 
your opinion?

>
> ...and I think we may unexport acpi_tb_* in this case as Bob suggested for it
> to be internal API.

see above.

>
>> - please, include Ferry into Cc (as done in this mail)
>