linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 10/11] PCI/DPC: Add Error Disconnect Recover (EDR) support

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:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:00:31 -0700
From:   "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ashok.raj@...el.com, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 10/11] PCI/DPC: Add Error Disconnect Recover (EDR)
 support

Hi Bjorn,

On 3/24/20 2:37 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> This is really ugly.  What's the story on this firmware?  It sounds
> defective to me.
I think there is no defined standard for this. I have checked few
_DSM implementations. Some of them return default value and some
don't. But atleast in the test hardware I use, we need this check.

> 
> Or is everybody that uses _DSM supposed to check before evaluating it?
I think its safer to do this check.
> E.g.,
> 
>    if (!acpi_check_dsm(...))
>      return -EINVAL;
> 
>    obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(...);
> 
> If everybody is supposed to do this, it seems like the check part
> should be moved into acpi_evaluate_dsm().