linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / x86: Work around broken XSDT on Advantech DAC-BJ01 board

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:   Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:38:36 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Mark Cilissen <mark@...suba.nl>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / x86: Work around broken XSDT on Advantech
 DAC-BJ01 board

Hi Mark,

On 3/2/22 21:20, Mark Cilissen wrote:
>> On 2 Mar 4 Reiwa, at 10:02, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
> 
> Hi Hans,
> 
>>
>>> […]
>>
>> Heh, I should have noticed this new version before replying. I see that
>> you've dropped the BIOS-date match. But that actually is often more useful
>> then the BIOS_VERSION, sometimes vendors don't bump the version when
>> doing a new BIOS build.
>>
>> If you only want to match the exact BIOS you tested against I would
>> drop the BIOS_VENDOR check instead.
> 
> I am admittedly bit wary of dropping the BIOS_VENDOR check. As the cause of
> this issue seems to be specifically a BIOS compilation error, it feels 
> incomplete to leave this match out.
> 
> Since “CRB” in the DMI product name indicates the board design is derivative
> of a generic Intel reference design (“Customer Reference Board”),
> maybe it’s better to drop the SYS_VENDOR match instead?
> It seems to bear little relation to the actual vendor (Advantech)
> encountered in my testing hardware, anyway.
> 
> Let me know; if you still feel it’s better to drop the BIOS_VENDOR match,
> I will do that instead.

I think that there are a lot more boards that will have
DMI_BIOS_VENDOR == "Phoenix Technologies LTD"
then that there are boards that will have
DMI_PRODUCT_NAME == "Bearlake CRB Board"

So if you want to make the DMI match as specific as possible then
IMHO dropping the bios-vendor match is best.

Regards,

Hans