Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

[Al Stone]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.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@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.

Many thanks!

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