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:   Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:27:19 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
To:     "Mani, Rajmohan" <>
Cc:     Heikki Krogerus <>,
        Darren Hart <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Mika Westerberg <>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <>,
        Lee Jones <>,
        Ayman Bagabas <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        "Joseph, Jithu" <>,
        Bla┼ż Hrastnik <>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] platform/x86: Add Intel Input Output Manager
 (IOM) driver

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 03:20:22PM +0000, Mani, Rajmohan wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] platform/x86: Add Intel Input Output Manager
> > (IOM) driver
> > 
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > I still find this crazy that a whole separate driver is created just
> > > to read a single 32bit value.
> > >
> > > Why not put this logic in the driver that wants to read that value?
> > > That would be much simpler, smaller, and more obvious.
> > 
> > That would mean that we start maintaining something like DMI quirk table in
> > those drivers. Unfortunately the IOM device is not available on every platform.
> > Also, even on platforms that do have it, there is no guarantee that the device is
> > always going to be mapped to the same address.
> > 
> > Nevertheless, I was originally hoping that we could hide the handling of IOM
> > somehow in ACPI without the need for an actual device object, but it now
> > turns out that the other features of the IOM chip have created interest. At
> > least our i915 guys probable have some use for it (I don't know exactly what
> > they are planning to use it for).
> > 
> > So the fact that we may later need the device for something else, on top of the
> > clumsiness and most importantly risks involved with using ACPI to take care of
> > extra tasks (ASL tends to have bugs - bugs that may never ever get fixed), I
> > think the IOM device object, and the driver that binds to it, do have a valid
> > reason for existing.
> > 
> Intel PMC USB mux device is part of the PCH, while IOM is part of the SoC.

I have no idea what a "PCH" is, what "IOM" is, and how any of this
relates to a "SoC" :)

Don't impose arbritrary hardware "splits" to kernel code when the kernel
has no such "partitioning" please.

> This was another reason we had to have a separate ACPI device.

That sounds like a firmware issue you can solve in UEFI.

I think this is the most TLA-laden email I have ever written, and I used
to work at IBM :)

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists