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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 03:13:12 PM Al Stone wrote:
> 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 :)?

The merge window is actually over, so why would you expect anything like that?

I'm going to apply this series if people have no problems with it.  I do think
it is slightly overkill, but then as long as it works ...

Thanks,
Rafael