linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 2/9] ACPI: Adjust #ifdef for *_lps0

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]

Message-ID: <20230816165729.GA291397@bhelgaas>
Date:   Wed, 16 Aug 2023 11:57:29 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Iain Lane <iain@...ngesquash.org.uk>,
        Shyam-sundar S-k <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/9] ACPI: Adjust #ifdef for *_lps0_dev use

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 01:32:05PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 8/15/2023 13:28, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 01:54:46PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > The #ifdef currently is guarded against CONFIG_X86, but these are
> > > actually sleep related functions so they should be tied to
> > > CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
> > > ---
> > > v9->v10:
> > >   * split from other patches
> > > ---
> > >   include/linux/acpi.h | 4 ++--
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > index 0d5277b7c6323..13a0fca3539f0 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > @@ -1100,7 +1100,7 @@ void acpi_os_set_prepare_extended_sleep(int (*func)(u8 sleep_state,
> > >   acpi_status acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep(u8 sleep_state,
> > >   					   u32 val_a, u32 val_b);
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP) && defined(CONFIG_X86)
> > 
> > What's the connection to CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP?
> > 
> > The acpi_register_lps0_dev() implementation in
> > drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c is under #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND (and
> > obviously s2idle.c is only compiled at all if CONFIG_X86).
> > 
> > Both callers (amd_pmc_probe() and thinkpad_acpi_module_init()) are
> > under #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND.
> 
> My thought process was that s2idle.c is from drivers/acpi/x86 and only can
> be used in the context of ACPI enabled sleep.
> 
> But I could see the argument for CONFIG_SUSPEND being stronger.  I'll adjust
> and make sure the rest of the series works with CONFIG_SUSPEND.

It's very hard to verify that it's correct if the declaration is under
a different #ifdef than the implementation, whereas it's trivial if it
uses the same #ifdef.

Bjorn