linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] ACPI: skip IRQ1 override on 3 Ryzen 6000 laptops

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]

Message-ID: <CAJsYDVL=fgExYdw3JB-59rCwOqTbSt2N0Xw2WCmoTSzOQEMRRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 20:44:54 +0800
From:   Chuanhong Guo <gch981213@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Tighe Donnelly <tighe.donnelly@...tonmail.com>,
        Kent Hou Man <knthmn0@...il.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] ACPI: skip IRQ1 override on 3 Ryzen 6000 laptops

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:12 AM Limonciello, Mario
<mario.limonciello@....com> wrote:
> However I do want to point out that Windows doesn't care about legacy
> format or not.  This bug where keyboard doesn't work only popped up on
> Linux.
>
> Given the number of systems with the bug is appearing to grow I wonder
> if the right answer is actually a new heuristic that doesn't apply the
> kernel override for polarity inversion anymore.  Maybe if the system is
> 2022 or newer?  Or on the ACPI version?

The previous attempt to limit the scope of IRQ override ends up
breaking some other buggy devices:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/20210728151958.15205-1-hui.wang@canonical.com/

It's unfortunate that the original author of this IRQ override doesn't
limit the scope to their exact devices.

Hi, Rafael! What do you think? should we skip this IRQ override
one-by-one or add a different matching logic to check the bios date
instead?

-- 
Regards,
Chuanhong Guo