linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/acpi: acpi_is_processor

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:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 22:25:45 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>
Cc:     mario.limonciello@....com, rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvijayab@....com,
        miguel.luis@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/acpi: acpi_is_processor_usable() dropping
 possible cpus

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 03:07:23PM -0500, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> https://ueif.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6_3_May16.pdf
> Section 5.2.12 MADT. Table 5-43 is the MADT Revision is numbered 5.
> However, ACPI 6.x specs got a little "sloppy" with Revision,

Yes, I've found what you're pointing out too. But exactly because of
this sloppiness I'd like to see this more explicitly. Because we're
basing functionality off of it and it is not some meaningless
paperweight anymore.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette