All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>,
	"patches@linaro.org" <patches@linaro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:07:56 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <559BEB4C.90906@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150707133115.GB13228@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On 07/07/2015 07:31 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:20:51AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable
>>> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in
>>> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long.  But, there is only one definition
>>> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version.  Hence, when
>>> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC
>>> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in
>>> the wild that have them.
>>>
>>> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against
>>> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1 does not appear to have this
>>> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition.
>>>
>>> Though there is precedent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in size,
>>> this patch set instead verifies correctness.  The first patch adds the
>>> BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro to check the GICC subtable only, accounting
>>> for the difference in specification versions that are possible.  The
>>> second patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY
>>> macro in arm64 code, which is currently the only architecture affected.
>>> The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as is for all other MADT
>>> subtables.
>>>
>>> I have tested these patches on an APM Mustang with version 1.15 firmware,
>>> where the problem was found, and they fix the problem -- i.e., the system
>>> will boot with either Linux 4.1 or linux-next kernels using the same ACPI
>>> 5.1 compatible firmware.
>>
>> ACK for the series, but I guess it's better to let it go via ARM64, right?
> 
> Fine by me. I'll pick them up for 4.2-rc2.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Thanks, Catalin.  Holler if there's any problems.

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@redhat.com
-----------------------------------

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ahs3@redhat.com (Al Stone)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:07:56 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <559BEB4C.90906@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150707133115.GB13228@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On 07/07/2015 07:31 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:20:51AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable
>>> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in
>>> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long.  But, there is only one definition
>>> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version.  Hence, when
>>> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC
>>> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in
>>> the wild that have them.
>>>
>>> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against
>>> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1 does not appear to have this
>>> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition.
>>>
>>> Though there is precedent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in size,
>>> this patch set instead verifies correctness.  The first patch adds the
>>> BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro to check the GICC subtable only, accounting
>>> for the difference in specification versions that are possible.  The
>>> second patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY
>>> macro in arm64 code, which is currently the only architecture affected.
>>> The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as is for all other MADT
>>> subtables.
>>>
>>> I have tested these patches on an APM Mustang with version 1.15 firmware,
>>> where the problem was found, and they fix the problem -- i.e., the system
>>> will boot with either Linux 4.1 or linux-next kernels using the same ACPI
>>> 5.1 compatible firmware.
>>
>> ACK for the series, but I guess it's better to let it go via ARM64, right?
> 
> Fine by me. I'll pick them up for 4.2-rc2.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Thanks, Catalin.  Holler if there's any problems.

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3 at redhat.com
-----------------------------------

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	"linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"patches@linaro.org" <patches@linaro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 09:07:56 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <559BEB4C.90906@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150707133115.GB13228@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On 07/07/2015 07:31 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:20:51AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable
>>> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in
>>> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long.  But, there is only one definition
>>> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version.  Hence, when
>>> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC
>>> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in
>>> the wild that have them.
>>>
>>> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against
>>> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1 does not appear to have this
>>> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition.
>>>
>>> Though there is precedent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in size,
>>> this patch set instead verifies correctness.  The first patch adds the
>>> BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro to check the GICC subtable only, accounting
>>> for the difference in specification versions that are possible.  The
>>> second patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY
>>> macro in arm64 code, which is currently the only architecture affected.
>>> The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as is for all other MADT
>>> subtables.
>>>
>>> I have tested these patches on an APM Mustang with version 1.15 firmware,
>>> where the problem was found, and they fix the problem -- i.e., the system
>>> will boot with either Linux 4.1 or linux-next kernels using the same ACPI
>>> 5.1 compatible firmware.
>>
>> ACK for the series, but I guess it's better to let it go via ARM64, right?
> 
> Fine by me. I'll pick them up for 4.2-rc2.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Thanks, Catalin.  Holler if there's any problems.

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@redhat.com
-----------------------------------

  reply	other threads:[~2015-07-07 15:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-06 23:16 [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16 ` Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] ACPI / ARM64: add BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16   ` Al Stone
2015-07-07  9:25   ` Will Deacon
2015-07-07  9:25     ` Will Deacon
2015-07-07 15:12     ` Al Stone
2015-07-07 15:12       ` Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPI / ARM64 : use the new BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY macro Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16   ` Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:20 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-06 23:20   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-06 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:45     ` Al Stone
2015-07-07  6:40     ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-07-07  6:40       ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-07-07 13:31   ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-07 13:31     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-07 15:07     ` Al Stone [this message]
2015-07-07 15:07       ` Al Stone
2015-07-07 15:07       ` Al Stone

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=559BEB4C.90906@redhat.com \
    --to=ahs3@redhat.com \
    --cc=al.stone@linaro.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=patches@linaro.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.