linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] cxl/acpi.c: Add buggy BIOS hint for CXL ACPI lookup failure

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]

Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 08:47:24 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: PJ Waskiewicz <ppwaskie@...nel.org>, Dan Williams
	<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cxl/acpi.c: Add buggy BIOS hint for CXL ACPI lookup
 failure

PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
> Buggy BIOS, that above value resolves to CX02.  In fact, it *should* be
> 49.  This is very much a bug in the ACPI arena.

Ok, so back to this patch in question, my concern with upgrading:

    dev_err(dev, "unable to retrieve _UID\n");

..to say "potentially buggy BIOS", is that same charge could be levied
against all of the dev_warn() and dev_err() instances in
drivers/cxl/acpi.c. So, it's not clear to me that cxl_acpi driver
failures need to be more explicit.

Otherwise, pretty much any ACPI hiccup message in the kernel would be
candidate for claiming "BIOS is busted".