linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64/acpi: panic when failed to init acpi table with acpi=force option

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]

Message-ID: <Z0S7A6uOHpXZbxfy@e129823.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:59:31 +0000
From: Levi Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, sami.mujawar@....com, sudeep.holla@....com,
	pierre.gondois@....com, hagarhem@...zon.com,
	catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, guohanjun@...wei.com,
	Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64/acpi: panic when failed to init acpi table
 with acpi=force option

Hi Ard.

>
> Calling panic() at this point does not achieve anything useful,
> though. Without ACPI tables or a DT, the only way to observe this
> panic message is by using earlycon= with an explicit MMIO address, and
> it might be better to limp on instead. Is there anything bad that
> might happen because of this, other than the user's wishes getting
> violated?

IMHO, the most weird thing is progressing boot with acpi table although
it failed to initailise. in this situation continuing to boot maybe
dead in unexepceted places. I think it would be better to prevent
futher progress by calling the panic() in this situation.