[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iUtRzXLS-pT8oK8MdcunxjL4Redb0Z2b3WKc6GHi31Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:52:10 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] randstruct: Disable randomization of ACPICA structs
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:25:53PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Can you send the patch to https://github.com/acpica/acpica ? My change
>> was finally accepted, so this whole issue will go away on the next
>> refresh. Until then, I don't want to block the entire automatic
>> structure selection logic of randstruct on a three-function table. :)
>
> I do not have a github account and no such thing is required for kernel
> development.
>
> I've already CCed the ACPI maintainer the last time I sent the patch,
> and I would much prefer if they'd just include it to play silly games.
> Ccing them and Linus once again to sort this process mess out.
>
>> Given that it's a tiny exclusion for randstruct, and there is already
>> a path in motion to fix it, I think this patch is trivial and
>> sufficient.
>
> But it's pointless - just do the right thing.
>
> ---
> From e8046f6507c2ed60bc501a0c0caa5a3f15f5e3e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 09:53:45 +0300
> Subject: acpi: get rid of acpi_sleep_dispatch
>
> No need for the array of structs of function pointers when we can just
> call the handfull of functions directly.
>
> This could be further cleaned up if acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware was defined
> true in the ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE case, but that's material for the next
> round.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c | 89 +++++++++--------------------------------
> include/acpi/actypes.h | 9 -----
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c
> index 5733b1167e46..66fa3ebddd57 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c
> @@ -57,26 +57,6 @@ acpi_hw_set_firmware_waking_vector(struct acpi_table_facs *facs,
> acpi_physical_address physical_address64);
> #endif
>
> -static acpi_status acpi_hw_sleep_dispatch(u8 sleep_state, u32 function_id);
> -
> -/*
> - * Dispatch table used to efficiently branch to the various sleep
> - * functions.
> - */
> -#define ACPI_SLEEP_FUNCTION_ID 0
> -#define ACPI_WAKE_PREP_FUNCTION_ID 1
> -#define ACPI_WAKE_FUNCTION_ID 2
> -
> -/* Legacy functions are optional, based upon ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE */
> -
> -static struct acpi_sleep_functions acpi_sleep_dispatch[] = {
> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_sleep),
> - acpi_hw_extended_sleep},
> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake_prep),
> - acpi_hw_extended_wake_prep},
> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake), acpi_hw_extended_wake}
> -};
> -
> /*
> * These functions are removed for the ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE case:
> * acpi_set_firmware_waking_vector
> @@ -236,53 +216,6 @@ acpi_status acpi_enter_sleep_state_s4bios(void)
>
> ACPI_EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_enter_sleep_state_s4bios)
> #endif /* !ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE */
> -/*******************************************************************************
> - *
> - * FUNCTION: acpi_hw_sleep_dispatch
> - *
> - * PARAMETERS: sleep_state - Which sleep state to enter/exit
> - * function_id - Sleep, wake_prep, or Wake
> - *
> - * RETURN: Status from the invoked sleep handling function.
> - *
> - * DESCRIPTION: Dispatch a sleep/wake request to the appropriate handling
> - * function.
> - *
> - ******************************************************************************/
> -static acpi_status acpi_hw_sleep_dispatch(u8 sleep_state, u32 function_id)
> -{
> - acpi_status status;
> - struct acpi_sleep_functions *sleep_functions =
> - &acpi_sleep_dispatch[function_id];
> -
> -#if (!ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE)
> - /*
> - * If the Hardware Reduced flag is set (from the FADT), we must
> - * use the extended sleep registers (FADT). Note: As per the ACPI
> - * specification, these extended registers are to be used for HW-reduced
> - * platforms only. They are not general-purpose replacements for the
> - * legacy PM register sleep support.
> - */
> - if (acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware) {
> - status = sleep_functions->extended_function(sleep_state);
> - } else {
> - /* Legacy sleep */
> -
> - status = sleep_functions->legacy_function(sleep_state);
> - }
> -
> - return (status);
> -
> -#else
> - /*
> - * For the case where reduced-hardware-only code is being generated,
> - * we know that only the extended sleep registers are available
> - */
> - status = sleep_functions->extended_function(sleep_state);
> - return (status);
> -
> -#endif /* !ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE */
> -}
>
> /*******************************************************************************
> *
> @@ -389,7 +322,12 @@ acpi_status acpi_enter_sleep_state(u8 sleep_state)
> return_ACPI_STATUS(AE_AML_OPERAND_VALUE);
> }
>
> - status = acpi_hw_sleep_dispatch(sleep_state, ACPI_SLEEP_FUNCTION_ID);
> +#if !ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE
> + if (!acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware)
> + status = acpi_hw_legacy_sleep(sleep_state);
> + else
> +#endif
> + status = acpi_hw_extended_sleep(sleep_state);
> return_ACPI_STATUS(status);
> }
>
I guess you can avoid these #ifs in function bodies?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
