From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vadim Lomovtsev Subject: Re: [BUG] acpica: ltp_acpi test case causes kernel crash at acpi_ns_walk_namespace Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:55:47 -0800 Message-ID: <20171213145547.GB6692@localhost.localdomain> References: <1513094360-1414-1-git-send-email-Vadim.Lomovtsev@caviumnetworks.com> <9523980.S2jPabPoO5@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-cys01nam02on0056.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.37.56]:19104 "EHLO NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752879AbdLMOzx (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:55:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9523980.S2jPabPoO5@aspire.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vadim.lomovtsev@cavium.com On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:45:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:59:19 PM CET Vadim Lomovtsev wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > While running LTP tests I've faced kernel crash caused by ltp_acpi test case. > > I have ACPI support enabled in kernel but kernel is boot with FDT having ACPI > > disabled. The ltp_acpi test case application is built along with ltp_acpi_cmds > > module to run ACPI tests. > > > > So my question is - should we update acpica implementation at kernel side by > > adding 'acpi_disabled' variable checking to the 'acpi_get_devices' function (see > > patch next to this email, maybe not a good approach) or this should be fixed at LTP > > side so the ltp_acpi_cmds should be updated in order to check if acpi is enabled > > before running tests ? > > There should be a check preventing acpi_get_devices() from being called in the > acpi_disabled case. In my case I have to update ltp_acpi code then. > > acpi_disabled is Linux-specific and the ACPICA code isn't, so the code calling > ACPICA functions should check acpi_disabled when necessary. Agree. However getting back to LTP tests it looks like such calls were implemented intentionally without checking of aspi_disabled value. Don't we have any self-testing stuff in acpica to prevent such scenarious ? WBR, Vadim > > Thanks, > Rafael >