All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Pat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org>, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	patches@linaro.org, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:27:43 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <561EC8CF.3090101@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3556673.VbpJrNsKqP@vostro.rjw.lan>

On 10/14/2015 03:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 02:20:51 PM Al Stone wrote:
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>> --------------020400080004050109020606
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> On 10/12/2015 10:06 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Al Stone wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2015 09:58 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2015 08:49 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2015 11:08 AM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/05/2015 10:12 AM, Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/05/2015 07:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:10:16 AM Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/30/2015 03:00 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015/9/30 7:45, Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> NB: this patch set is for use against the linux-pm bleeding edge
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For this patch set,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Hanjun
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Hanjun!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Series applied, thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rafael
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, Rafael!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just decided to test out linux-next (to see the new nouveau cleanups).
>>>>>>> This change set prevents my Lenovo W510 from booting properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverting: 7494b0 "ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to
>>>>>>> eventually replace the macro"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gets the system booting again.  I'm attaching my dmesg from the failed
>>>>>>> boot, who wants the acpidump?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: undefined version for either FADT 4.0 or MADT 1
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: Error parsing LAPIC address override entry
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems the MADT revision is not right, could you dump the ACPI MADT
>>>>>> (APIC) table and send it out? I will take a look :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Hanjun
>>>>>
>>>>> Here ya go, enjoy.  Feel free to CC me on any patches that might fix it.
>>>>
>>>> Pat,
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind sending a copy of the FADT, also, please?  The first of the
>>>> ACPI messages is a check of version correspondence between the FADT and MADT,
>>>> while the second message is from looking at just an MADT subtable.  Thanks
>>>> for sending the MADT out -- that helps me quite a lot in thinking this through.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, whoever is providing the BIOS (Lenovo, I assume) may want to have a look
>>>> at these, also:
>>>>
>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X length mismatch in
>>>> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 16/32 (20150818/tbfadt-623)
>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): Invalid length for
>>>> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 32, using default 16 (20150818/tbfadt-704)
>>>>
>>>> Not inherently dangerous, but definitely sloppy and mind-numbingly easy to
>>>> avoid, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here ya go.
>>
>> Okay.  There's just a lot of weird stuff out there in ACPI-land.  I've
>> attached four minor fixes for the special cases that have been reported
>> (well, the last one is actually a fix for a typo in the spec, but just
>> the same...).
>>
>> These should apply on top of linux-next; would you mind trying them out
>> to make sure I didn't break anything else on your laptop?  If they behave
>> as I hope they will, I think I'll have covered all the places where the
>> checking of MADT subtables needs to be be relaxed a bit.  These work for
>> me on arm64, but if they work for you and a couple of other testers, then
>> I'll send them to Rafael properly.
> 
> Well, you might as well submit them properly right away, so I could pick
> them up and put them into my linux-next branch, which then might make it
> easier for some people to test them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 

Fair enough.  I was just being overly cautious about possible further breakage.

Done.  Patch series sent to the list.

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Pat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org>, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	patches@linaro.org, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:27:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <561EC8CF.3090101@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3556673.VbpJrNsKqP@vostro.rjw.lan>

On 10/14/2015 03:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 02:20:51 PM Al Stone wrote:
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>> --------------020400080004050109020606
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> On 10/12/2015 10:06 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Al Stone wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2015 09:58 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2015 08:49 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2015 11:08 AM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/05/2015 10:12 AM, Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/05/2015 07:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:10:16 AM Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/30/2015 03:00 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015/9/30 7:45, Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> NB: this patch set is for use against the linux-pm bleeding edge
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For this patch set,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Hanjun
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Hanjun!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Series applied, thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rafael
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, Rafael!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just decided to test out linux-next (to see the new nouveau cleanups).
>>>>>>> This change set prevents my Lenovo W510 from booting properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverting: 7494b0 "ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to
>>>>>>> eventually replace the macro"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gets the system booting again.  I'm attaching my dmesg from the failed
>>>>>>> boot, who wants the acpidump?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: undefined version for either FADT 4.0 or MADT 1
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: Error parsing LAPIC address override entry
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems the MADT revision is not right, could you dump the ACPI MADT
>>>>>> (APIC) table and send it out? I will take a look :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Hanjun
>>>>>
>>>>> Here ya go, enjoy.  Feel free to CC me on any patches that might fix it.
>>>>
>>>> Pat,
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind sending a copy of the FADT, also, please?  The first of the
>>>> ACPI messages is a check of version correspondence between the FADT and MADT,
>>>> while the second message is from looking at just an MADT subtable.  Thanks
>>>> for sending the MADT out -- that helps me quite a lot in thinking this through.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, whoever is providing the BIOS (Lenovo, I assume) may want to have a look
>>>> at these, also:
>>>>
>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X length mismatch in
>>>> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 16/32 (20150818/tbfadt-623)
>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): Invalid length for
>>>> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 32, using default 16 (20150818/tbfadt-704)
>>>>
>>>> Not inherently dangerous, but definitely sloppy and mind-numbingly easy to
>>>> avoid, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here ya go.
>>
>> Okay.  There's just a lot of weird stuff out there in ACPI-land.  I've
>> attached four minor fixes for the special cases that have been reported
>> (well, the last one is actually a fix for a typo in the spec, but just
>> the same...).
>>
>> These should apply on top of linux-next; would you mind trying them out
>> to make sure I didn't break anything else on your laptop?  If they behave
>> as I hope they will, I think I'll have covered all the places where the
>> checking of MADT subtables needs to be be relaxed a bit.  These work for
>> me on arm64, but if they work for you and a couple of other testers, then
>> I'll send them to Rafael properly.
> 
> Well, you might as well submit them properly right away, so I could pick
> them up and put them into my linux-next branch, which then might make it
> easier for some people to test them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 

Fair enough.  I was just being overly cautious about possible further breakage.

Done.  Patch series sent to the list.

-- 
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: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:27:43 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <561EC8CF.3090101@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3556673.VbpJrNsKqP@vostro.rjw.lan>

On 10/14/2015 03:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 02:20:51 PM Al Stone wrote:
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>> --------------020400080004050109020606
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> On 10/12/2015 10:06 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Al Stone wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2015 09:58 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2015 08:49 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2015 11:08 AM, Pat Erley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/05/2015 10:12 AM, Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/05/2015 07:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:10:16 AM Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/30/2015 03:00 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015/9/30 7:45, Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> NB: this patch set is for use against the linux-pm bleeding edge
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For this patch set,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Hanjun
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Hanjun!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Series applied, thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rafael
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, Rafael!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just decided to test out linux-next (to see the new nouveau cleanups).
>>>>>>> This change set prevents my Lenovo W510 from booting properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reverting: 7494b0 "ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to
>>>>>>> eventually replace the macro"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gets the system booting again.  I'm attaching my dmesg from the failed
>>>>>>> boot, who wants the acpidump?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: undefined version for either FADT 4.0 or MADT 1
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: Error parsing LAPIC address override entry
>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems the MADT revision is not right, could you dump the ACPI MADT
>>>>>> (APIC) table and send it out? I will take a look :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Hanjun
>>>>>
>>>>> Here ya go, enjoy.  Feel free to CC me on any patches that might fix it.
>>>>
>>>> Pat,
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind sending a copy of the FADT, also, please?  The first of the
>>>> ACPI messages is a check of version correspondence between the FADT and MADT,
>>>> while the second message is from looking at just an MADT subtable.  Thanks
>>>> for sending the MADT out -- that helps me quite a lot in thinking this through.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, whoever is providing the BIOS (Lenovo, I assume) may want to have a look
>>>> at these, also:
>>>>
>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X length mismatch in
>>>> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 16/32 (20150818/tbfadt-623)
>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): Invalid length for
>>>> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 32, using default 16 (20150818/tbfadt-704)
>>>>
>>>> Not inherently dangerous, but definitely sloppy and mind-numbingly easy to
>>>> avoid, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here ya go.
>>
>> Okay.  There's just a lot of weird stuff out there in ACPI-land.  I've
>> attached four minor fixes for the special cases that have been reported
>> (well, the last one is actually a fix for a typo in the spec, but just
>> the same...).
>>
>> These should apply on top of linux-next; would you mind trying them out
>> to make sure I didn't break anything else on your laptop?  If they behave
>> as I hope they will, I think I'll have covered all the places where the
>> checking of MADT subtables needs to be be relaxed a bit.  These work for
>> me on arm64, but if they work for you and a couple of other testers, then
>> I'll send them to Rafael properly.
> 
> Well, you might as well submit them properly right away, so I could pick
> them up and put them into my linux-next branch, which then might make it
> easier for some people to test them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 

Fair enough.  I was just being overly cautious about possible further breakage.

Done.  Patch series sent to the list.

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

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-14 21:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-29 23:45 [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45 ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45 ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to eventually replace the macro Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] ACPI / ARM64: remove usage of BAD_MADT_ENTRY/BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] ACPI / IA64: remove usage of BAD_MADT_ENTRY Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] ACPI / X86: " Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] ACPI: remove definition of BAD_MADT_ENTRY macro Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-29 23:45   ` Al Stone
2015-09-30  9:00 ` [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks Hanjun Guo
2015-09-30  9:00   ` Hanjun Guo
2015-09-30  9:00   ` Hanjun Guo
2015-09-30  9:00   ` Hanjun Guo
2015-09-30 16:10   ` Al Stone
2015-09-30 16:10     ` Al Stone
2015-09-30 16:10     ` Al Stone
2015-10-05 13:39     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-05 13:39       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-05 13:39       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-05 17:12       ` Al Stone
2015-10-05 17:12         ` Al Stone
2015-10-05 17:12         ` Al Stone
2015-10-12  3:08         ` Pat Erley
2015-10-12  3:49           ` [Linaro-acpi] " Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12  3:49             ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12  3:49             ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12  3:58             ` Pat Erley
2015-10-12  3:58               ` Pat Erley
2015-10-12  3:58               ` Pat Erley
2015-10-12  7:04               ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12  7:04                 ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12  7:04                 ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12  9:44                 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-10-12  9:44                   ` Sudeep Holla
2015-10-12  9:44                   ` Sudeep Holla
2015-10-12 13:04                   ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12 13:04                     ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12 13:04                     ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12 18:56                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-12 19:25                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-12 19:25                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-12 19:07                     ` Al Stone
2015-10-12 19:07                       ` Al Stone
2015-10-12 19:07                       ` Al Stone
2015-10-13  8:43                     ` Sudeep Holla
2015-10-13  8:43                       ` Sudeep Holla
2015-10-13  8:43                       ` Sudeep Holla
2015-10-12 18:53                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-12 19:21                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-12 19:21                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-13  1:23                   ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-13  1:23                     ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-13  1:23                     ` Hanjun Guo
2015-10-12 20:52               ` Al Stone
2015-10-12 20:52                 ` Al Stone
2015-10-12 20:52                 ` Al Stone
2015-10-13  4:06                 ` Pat Erley
2015-10-13  4:06                   ` Pat Erley
2015-10-13  4:06                   ` Pat Erley
2015-10-14 20:20                   ` Al Stone
2015-10-14 20:20                     ` Al Stone
2015-10-14 20:20                     ` Al Stone
2015-10-14 20:57                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-14 21:25                       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-14 21:25                       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-14 21:27                       ` Al Stone [this message]
2015-10-14 21:27                         ` Al Stone
2015-10-14 21:27                         ` 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=561EC8CF.3090101@redhat.com \
    --to=ahs3@redhat.com \
    --cc=al.stone@linaro.org \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.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-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pat-lkml@erley.org \
    --cc=patches@linaro.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    /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.