From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762216AbZDJKkj (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:40:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756248AbZDJKk1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:40:27 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:42591 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754225AbZDJKk0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:40:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:39:34 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pavel Machek Cc: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@linux.intel.com, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [tip:x86/setup] x86, setup: "glove box" BIOS calls -- infrastructure Message-ID: <20090410103934.GA21506@elte.hu> References: <49DE7F79.4030106@zytor.com> <20090410080444.GC16512@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090410080444.GC16512@elf.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > x86, setup: "glove box" BIOS calls -- infrastructure > > > > Impact: new interfaces (not yet used) > > > > For all the platforms out there, there is an infinite number of buggy > > BIOSes. This adds infrastructure to treat BIOS interrupts more like > > toxic waste and "glove box" them -- we switch out the register set, > > perform the BIOS interrupt, and then restore the previous state. > > > > LKML-Reference: <49DE7F79.4030106@zytor.com> > > Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin > > Cc: Pavel Machek > > Sounds quite sane. Disadvantage is that we will no longer detect > those buggy BIOSen. I'd call that an advantage: sandboxing BIOS calls as much as we can and trusting all data from it as if it were a random packet from the Internet is the only sane way forward IMHO. If we really care we could put in checks for unexpected register state changes ... but is it worth the trouble? Ingo