linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi/hmat: ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 2 Oct 2019 10:25:40 +1000
From:   Daniel Black <daniel@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tao Xu <tao3.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/hmat: ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID is deprecated in
 ACPI-6.3

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:03:45 +1000
Daniel Black <daniel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:28:50 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:24 AM Daniel Black <daniel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:  
> > >
> > > ACPI-6.3 corresponds to when hmat revision was bumped from
> > > 1 to 2. In this version ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID was
> > > deprecated and made reserved.
> > >
> > > As such in revision 2+ we shouldn't be testing this flag.
> > >
> > > This is as per ACPI-6.3, 5.2.27.3, Table 5-145
> > > "Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure"
> > > for Flags.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Black <daniel@...ux.ibm.com>    
> > 
> > Keith, any comments?  
> 
> FYI this was found when I was testing Tao Xu's qemu implementation of HMAT ACPI-6.3 which has no implementation of  ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID.
> 
> Current patch implementing Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11125301/


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:03:15 +0800
Tao Xu <tao3.xu@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@...el.com>

Ping. Any comments?