linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/13] x86/acpi: Add support for CPU offlining for ACPI MADT wakeup method

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:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 13:42:34 +0300
From:   "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] x86/acpi: Add support for CPU offlining for ACPI
 MADT wakeup method

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 09:49:59AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 16:14 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >  struct acpi_madt_multiproc_wakeup {
> >  	struct acpi_subtable_header header;
> > -	u16 mailbox_version;
> > +	u16 version;
> >  	u32 reserved;		/* reserved - must be zero */
> > -	u64 base_address;
> > +	u64 mailbox_address;
> > +	u64 reset_vector;
> >  };
> 
> I don't quite understand the connection between the renaming and what this patch
> wants to achieve?  What's the reason to rename?

Names are bad: the version field guides version of the structure, not
version of the mailbox. And it is not clear what base base_address
specifies.

> If needed, perhaps put into a separate patch with proper justification?

Hm. Okay...

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov