Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1244368 > unrolled thread

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

Started byHanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
First post2015-10-12 05:50 +0200
Last post2015-10-14 23:30 +0200
Articles 15 — 6 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> - 2015-10-12 05:50 +0200
    Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Pat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org> - 2015-10-12 06:00 +0200
      Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> - 2015-10-12 09:10 +0200
        Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2015-10-12 11:50 +0200
          Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> - 2015-10-12 15:10 +0200
          Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-10-12 21:00 +0200
            Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> - 2015-10-12 21:10 +0200
            Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2015-10-13 10:50 +0200
        Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-10-12 21:00 +0200
          Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> - 2015-10-13 03:30 +0200
      Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> - 2015-10-12 23:00 +0200
        Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Pat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org> - 2015-10-13 06:10 +0200
          Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> - 2015-10-14 22:30 +0200
            Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-10-14 23:00 +0200
              Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity  checks Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> - 2015-10-14 23:30 +0200

#1244368 — Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

FromHanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Date2015-10-12 05:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks
Message-ID<qiChA-3NN-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1244370

FromPat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org>
Date2015-10-12 06:00 +0200
Message-ID<qiCrg-3YQ-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1244368

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1244425

FromHanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Date2015-10-12 09:10 +0200
Message-ID<qiFp8-8uI-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1244370
On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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.

Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right
for ACPI 4.0:

[000h 0000   4]                    Signature : "APIC"    [Multiple APIC 
Description Table (MADT)]
[004h 0004   4]                 Table Length : 000000BC
[008h 0008   1]                     *Revision : 01*

I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from
previous version, and without the update for table revision.

I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict
it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a
patch.

Thanks
Hanjun

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1244551

FromSudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Date2015-10-12 11:50 +0200
Message-ID<qiHTY-3vm-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1244425

On 12/10/15 08:04, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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.
>
> Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right
> for ACPI 4.0:
>
> [000h 0000   4]                    Signature : "APIC"    [Multiple APIC
> Description Table (MADT)]
> [004h 0004   4]                 Table Length : 000000BC
> [008h 0008   1]                     *Revision : 01*
>
> I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from
> previous version, and without the update for table revision.
>
> I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict
> it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a
> patch.
>

Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict it to
some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force vendors to fix
their ACPI tables at-least in future.

It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to build
those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built in many
ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1244677

FromHanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Date2015-10-12 15:10 +0200
Message-ID<qiL1x-8hA-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1244551
On 10/12/2015 05:44 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 12/10/15 08:04, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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.
>>
>> Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right
>> for ACPI 4.0:
>>
>> [000h 0000   4]                    Signature : "APIC"    [Multiple APIC
>> Description Table (MADT)]
>> [004h 0004   4]                 Table Length : 000000BC
>> [008h 0008   1]                     *Revision : 01*
>>
>> I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from
>> previous version, and without the update for table revision.
>>
>> I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict
>> it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a
>> patch.
>>
>
> Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict it to
> some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force vendors to fix
> their ACPI tables at-least in future.

I agree.

>
> It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to build
> those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built in many
> ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools.

At least we can check that in the FWTS. :)

Thanks
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245028 — Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

From"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Date2015-10-12 21:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks
Message-ID<qiQue-7F7-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1244551
On Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44:52 AM Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> On 12/10/15 08:04, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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.
> >
> > Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right
> > for ACPI 4.0:
> >
> > [000h 0000   4]                    Signature : "APIC"    [Multiple APIC
> > Description Table (MADT)]
> > [004h 0004   4]                 Table Length : 000000BC
> > [008h 0008   1]                     *Revision : 01*
> >
> > I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from
> > previous version, and without the update for table revision.
> >
> > I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict
> > it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a
> > patch.
> >
> 
> Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict it to
> some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force vendors to fix
> their ACPI tables at-least in future.

No, we can't force vendors to fix their ACPI tables.  This is completely
unrealistic.

We simly need to deal with the bugs in the ACPI tables in the kernel.

> It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to build
> those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built in many
> ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools.

As I said to Al, we need those checks in firmware test suites.  Having
them in the kernel is OK too, but they should cause warnings to be printed
to the kernel log instead of causing the kernel to panic.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245037

FromAl Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
Date2015-10-12 21:10 +0200
Message-ID<qiQDT-85Y-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1245028
On 10/12/2015 01:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44:52 AM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/15 08:04, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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?

Thanks for sending this!

>>>>> [    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.
>>>
>>> Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right
>>> for ACPI 4.0:
>>>
>>> [000h 0000   4]                    Signature : "APIC"    [Multiple APIC
>>> Description Table (MADT)]
>>> [004h 0004   4]                 Table Length : 000000BC
>>> [008h 0008   1]                     *Revision : 01*
>>>
>>> I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from
>>> previous version, and without the update for table revision.
>>>
>>> I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict
>>> it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a
>>> patch.
>>>
>>
>> Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict it to
>> some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force vendors to fix
>> their ACPI tables at-least in future.
> 
> No, we can't force vendors to fix their ACPI tables.  This is completely
> unrealistic.
> 
> We simly need to deal with the bugs in the ACPI tables in the kernel.

Unfortunately true.  I've had a couple of reports to look at and think
through apart from this; it's really quite fascinating how much stuff
a slightly stricter table check is turning up.  A little surprising,
too, but fascinating.  A fix is in progress, still needs some testing...

>> It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to build
>> those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built in many
>> ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools.
> 
> As I said to Al, we need those checks in firmware test suites.  Having
> them in the kernel is OK too, but they should cause warnings to be printed
> to the kernel log instead of causing the kernel to panic.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 

Yup.  Agreed.  For x86, we can't induce kernel panics.  Since arm64 is new to
the game, we'll be stricter since we can afford to be for now.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245474

FromSudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Date2015-10-13 10:50 +0200
Message-ID<qj3rs-1kt-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1245028

On 12/10/15 20:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44:52 AM Sudeep Holla wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict
>> it to some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force
>> vendors to fix their ACPI tables at-least in future.
>
> No, we can't force vendors to fix their ACPI tables.  This is
> completely unrealistic.
>

No, I was referring to the future platforms *only*

> We simly need to deal with the bugs in the ACPI tables in the
> kernel.
>

Yes sadly true for existing systems, but if we now place a check for
ACPIv6.0 and above, we might avoid seeing such broken tables sometime in
future once the kernel with this check in place is used for validation.

>> It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to
>> build those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built
>> in many ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools.
>
> As I said to Al, we need those checks in firmware test suites.
> Having them in the kernel is OK too, but they should cause warnings
> to be printed to the kernel log instead of causing the kernel to
> panic.
>

Agreed

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245033 — Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

From"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Date2015-10-12 21:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks
Message-ID<qiQue-7F7-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1244425
On Monday, October 12, 2015 03:04:30 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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.
> 
> Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right
> for ACPI 4.0:
> 
> [000h 0000   4]                    Signature : "APIC"    [Multiple APIC 
> Description Table (MADT)]
> [004h 0004   4]                 Table Length : 000000BC
> [008h 0008   1]                     *Revision : 01*
> 
> I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from
> previous version, and without the update for table revision.
> 
> I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict
> it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a
> patch.

As I said before to Al, we definitely can't break systems that worked before
the commit in question.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245257

FromHanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Date2015-10-13 03:30 +0200
Message-ID<qiWzE-8a2-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1245033
On 10/13/2015 03:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2015 03:04:30 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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.
>>
>> Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right
>> for ACPI 4.0:
>>
>> [000h 0000   4]                    Signature : "APIC"    [Multiple APIC
>> Description Table (MADT)]
>> [004h 0004   4]                 Table Length : 000000BC
>> [008h 0008   1]                     *Revision : 01*
>>
>> I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from
>> previous version, and without the update for table revision.
>>
>> I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict
>> it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a
>> patch.
>
> As I said before to Al, we definitely can't break systems that worked before
> the commit in question.

Sure :)

Thanks
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245129

FromAl Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
Date2015-10-12 23:00 +0200
Message-ID<qiSmm-1Ya-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1244370
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.

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Linaro Enterprise Group
al.stone@linaro.org
-----------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245327

FromPat Erley <pat-lkml@erley.org>
Date2015-10-13 06:10 +0200
Message-ID<qiZ4t-3w3-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1245129

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1247134

FromAl Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
Date2015-10-14 22:30 +0200
Message-ID<qjAQp-10K-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1245327

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

Many thanks!

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1247151 — Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

From"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Date2015-10-14 23:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks
Message-ID<qjBjt-1yI-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1247134
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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1247199

FromAl Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
Date2015-10-14 23:30 +0200
Message-ID<qjBMu-2mZ-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1247151
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
-----------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web