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

[Hanjun Guo]

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 at 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