linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] ACPI: scan: Make acpi_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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jCPO9H-dCdew7LoUwg__wFwY60HYphxEgN_-=0Pe87Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:13:50 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, kangkang.shen@...urewei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] ACPI: scan: Make acpi_processor_add() check the
 device enabled bit

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:28 AM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:40:52 +0100
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > Modify acpi_processor_add() return an error if _STA returns the enabled
> > bit clear for the given processor device, so as to avoid using processors
> > that don't decode their resources, as per the ACPI specification. [1]
> >
> > Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/06_Device_Configuration.html#sta-device-status # [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Sorry for lack of reply on discussion.

No worries.

> Your follow up mails never reached my inbox for some reason

/me blames spam filters somewhere.

> so I just caught up on lore. I'll keep an eye on
> the archives to make sure I don't miss further discussion.

Thanks!

> Agreed that functional isn't relevant here so this patch is correct.
> Also agree that it would be nice to clarify the spec as you mentioned
> to say that bit 1 is reserved if bit 0 of _STA result is clear.
> Depending on interpretation it's either a clarification or a relaxation
> of current statements, so should be uncontroversial (famous last words ;)

Right.

> +CC kangkang so this is on his radar as an ACPI cleanup suggestion.
> For his reference, discussion is here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/CAJZ5v0jjD=KN0pOuWZZ8DT5yHdu03KgOSHYe3wB7h2vafNa44w@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>

Thanks for all of the reviews!