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  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:   Fri, 1 May 2020 15:10:01 +0200
From:   "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
To:     "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "david.e.box@...ux.intel.com" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
        "kbusch@...nel.org" <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add support for StorageD3Enable _DSD property

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:20:09AM +0000, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> > The platform can know which pm policies will save the most power. But
> > since the solution doesn't apply to all PCIe devices (despite BIOS
> > specifying it that way) I'll withdraw this patch. Thanks.
> 
> Wait, why withdraw? In this case the platform is unfortunately
> preventing the standard driver from making a proper determination. So
> while I agree that it's not the BIOSes job, when the platform actively
> prevents proper operation due to some ill conceived non-standard
> platform property what is Linux left to do on these systems?
> 
> The *patch* is not trying to overrule NVME, and the best I can say is
> that the Intel Linux team was not in the loop when this was being
> decided between the platform BIOS implemenation and  whomever  thought
> they could just publish random ACPI properties that impacted NVME
> operation [1].
> 
> So now David is trying to get these platform unbroken because they are
> already shipping with this b0rkage.

So can we please clearly mark this as a quirk and warn in the kernel
log about a buggy BIOS?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists