Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] ACPI: Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

[Al Stone]

On 09/09/2015 03:09 PM, Al Stone wrote:
> Currently, the BAD_MADT_ENTRY macro is used to do a very simple sanity
> check on the various subtables that are defined for the MADT.  The check
> compares the size of the subtable data structure as defined by ACPICA to
> the length entry in the subtable.  If they are not the same, the assumption
> is that the subtable is incorrect.
> 
> Over time, the ACPI spec has allowed for MADT subtables where this can
> never be true (the local SAPIC subtable, for example).  Or, more recently,
> the spec has accumulated some minor flaws where there are three possible 
> sizes for a subtable, all of which are valid, but only for specific versions
> of the spec (the GICC subtable).  In both cases, BAD_MADT_ENTRY reports these
> subtables as bad when they are not.  In order to retain some sanity check
> on the MADT subtables, we now have to special case these subtables.  Of
> necessity, these special cases have ended up in arch-dependent code (arm64)
> or an arch has simply decided to forgo the check (ia64).
> 
> This patch set replaces the BAD_MADT_ENTRY macro with a function called
> bad_madt_entry().  This function uses a data set of details about the
> subtables to provide more sanity checking than before:
> 
> 	-- is the subtable legal for the version given in the FADT?
> 
> 	-- is the subtable legal for the revision of the MADT in use?
> 
> 	-- is the subtable of the proper length (including checking
> 	   on the one variable length subtable that is currently ignored),
> 	   given the FADT version and the MADT revision?
> 
> Further, this patch set adds in the call to bad_madt_entry() from the 
> acpi_table_parse_madt() function, allowing it to be used consistently
> by all architectures, for all subtables, and removing the need for each
> of the subtable traversal callback functions to use BAD_MADT_ENTRY.
> 
> In theory, as the ACPI specification changes, we would only have to add
> additional information to the data set describing the MADT subtables in
> order to continue providing sanity checks, even when new subtables are
> added.
> 
> These patches have been tested on an APM Mustang (arm64) and are known to
> work there.  They have also been cross-compiled for x86 and ia64 with no
> known failures.
> 
> Changes for v3:
>    -- Reviewed-and-tested-by from Sudeep Holla for arm64 parts
>    -- Clearer language in error messages (Graeme Gregory, Timur Tabi)
>    -- Double checked that inserting call to bad_madt_entry() into the
>       function acpi_parse_entries() does not impact current behavior
>       (Sudeep Holla)
>    
> Changes for v2:
>    -- Acked-by on 2/5 from Marc Zyngier and Catalin Marinas for ARM
>    -- Correct faulty end of loop test found by Timur Tabi
> 
> 
> Al Stone (5):
>   ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to eventually replace the
>     macro
>   ACPI / ARM64: remove usage of BAD_MADT_ENTRY/BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY
>   ACPI / IA64: remove usage of BAD_MADT_ENTRY
>   ACPI / X86: remove usage of BAD_MADT_ENTRY
>   ACPI: remove definition of BAD_MADT_ENTRY macro
> 
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h |   8 --
>  arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c       |   2 -
>  arch/ia64/kernel/acpi.c       |  20 ----
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c   |  27 -----
>  drivers/acpi/tables.c         | 245 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c     |   6 --
>  include/linux/acpi.h          |   4 -
>  7 files changed, 244 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
> 

Ping?  Any additional comments on this version?  I have only received
feedback from arm64 reviewers so far, over three revisions, even though
everyone that needs to be (ACPI, ia64, x86) has also been CCd.

Anyone else before I fix a couple of things for v4 that the arm64 folks
found?  ACKs?  NAKs?  Please don't bother me, I'm in the merge window :)?

Thanks.

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/