From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298F9C46466 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7BE214C1 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:45:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=dellteam.com header.i=@dellteam.com header.b="yyoSq5Ep" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DF7BE214C1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Dellteam.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727133AbeKUHQK (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:16:10 -0500 Received: from esa5.dell-outbound.iphmx.com ([68.232.153.95]:6528 "EHLO esa5.dell-outbound.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725937AbeKUHQK (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:16:10 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dellteam.com; i=@dellteam.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1542746699; x=1574282699; h=cc:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ul/Qwa4C0Z9giykch425HBPzkowp1Hdp/zq4CDc+lkg=; b=yyoSq5EpWkuAI+4NJk2E5yxnEg+PEbkmliwiiqliA/oity/eYDy65vxa nYVnpkSfCgK97KXEk8v5nKF1vLsHNsa0yl0HeOk6RsDREXQtGodMhbSZ/ fFKAtMDZdYLrGl+DwUrVNQlk7Q1XYX7MqBdmJ6r0Up0UI1XqKWl0jITlK 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2EXAAD2cfRbhyeV50NjHAEBAQQBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGBUQcBAQsBAYNqJwqMBl+NK5c3gXoLAQGEbIN4IjQJDQEDAQECAQECAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CEAEBAQoLCQgpL0IBEAGBYiKCZgEBAQMSKD8QAgEIGB4QVwIEARIIGoJ/ggK?= =?us-ascii?q?eHgKBEIlYAQEBgh2KKIwFghaBEYMShH6FWwKLDZRqCQWRHSCRASyXVAIEAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?FAhSBRoIOcIM8gicOCY4cQAExggmKeYEfAQE?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2EXAAD2cfRbhyeV50NjHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUQcBAQsBA?= =?us-ascii?q?YNqJwqMBl+NK5c3gXoLAQGEbIN4IjQJDQEDAQECAQECAQECEAEBAQoLCQgpL?= =?us-ascii?q?0IBEAGBYiKCZgEBAQMSKD8QAgEIGB4QVwIEARIIGoJ/ggKeHgKBEIlYAQEBg?= =?us-ascii?q?h2KKIwFghaBEYMShH6FWwKLDZRqCQWRHSCRASyXVAIEAgQFAhSBRoIOcIM8g?= =?us-ascii?q?icOCY4cQAExggmKeYEfAQE?= Received: from mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com ([67.231.149.39]) by esa5.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 20 Nov 2018 14:44:42 -0600 Received: from pps.filterd (m0133268.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wAKKhJ1s169771; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:44:49 -0500 Received: from esa2.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com (esa2.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com [68.232.153.202]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nte3vk7y9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:44:48 -0500 Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Received: from ausc60ps301.us.dell.com ([143.166.148.206]) by esa2.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256; 21 Nov 2018 02:44:43 +0600 X-LoopCount0: from 10.166.134.85 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,258,1539666000"; d="scan'208";a="1228347735" From: To: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER Thread-Topic: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER Thread-Index: AQHUfTk2X+FUHiVWnkuZssuLn5DqDg== Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:44:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20181115231605.24352-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20181119165318.GB26595@localhost.localdomain> <74f2c527-0890-5e14-5e2d-48934a42dae6@kernel.org> <20181119174127.GE26595@localhost.localdomain> <20181119181051.GA26707@localhost.localdomain> <3f923367-2cc1-c0d6-bca6-bf9a03d1b9ca@gmail.com> <84013a8a-287d-d700-6710-91cc35f507c8@kernel.org> <9c9531c7efb846438f03f744b9afc466@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM> <3b18a9fa-7bdd-0fb4-285d-4efb454be50a@kernel.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.178.128.193] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-11-20_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1811200182 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/19/2018 07:54 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:=0A= > On 11/19/2018 6:49 PM, Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com wrote:=0A= >> On 11/19/2018 02:33 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:=0A= >>> However; table assumes governance about for which entities firmware fir= st=0A= >>> should be enabled. There is no cross reference to _OSC or permission=0A= >>> negotiation like _OST.=0A= >>=0A= >> Well, from an OSPM perspective, is FFS something that can be enabled or= =0A= >> disabled? FFS seems to be static to OSPM, which would change the sort of= =0A= >> assumptions we can reasonably make here.=0A= > =0A= > IMO, it can be enabled/disabled in BIOS. I have seen this implementation = before.=0A= > If the trigger is the presence of a statically compiled ACPI HEST table (= as the=0A= > current code does); presence of FFS would be static from OSPM perspective= .=0A= > BIOS could patch this table or hide it during boot.=0A= > =0A= > If FFS were to be negotiated via _OSC as indirectly implied in this serie= s, then=0A= > same BIOS could patch the ACPI table to return different values for the _= OSC=0A= > return.=0A= =0A= It is theoretically possible to have proprietary BIOS settings to =0A= disable FFS. The platform vendors that I've spoken to do not offer this =0A= option. Though even if, hypothetically, BIOS clears the FFS bit in HEST, = =0A= it won't stop it from commandeering the CPU and doing whatever it wants.=0A= =0A= Although, I'm not quite sure why we'd want to negotiate FFS itself. FFS =0A= is too big of a can of worms (goes far beyond AER error reporting), when = =0A= what we really care about is if OS can use a specific feature or not.=0A= >> Cool. While the UEFI Secret Society debates, can we figure out if/how=0A= >> [patch 1/2] breaks those systems, or is it only [patch 2/2] of this=0A= >> series that we suspect?=0A= > =0A= > I went back and looked at both patches. Both of them are removing referen= ces to=0A= > HEST table. I think both patches are impacted by this discussion.=0A= =0A= I'd prefer "sure" instead of "think". "I think it breaks some system I'm = =0A= not telling you about" doesn't help much in figuring out how not to =0A= break said system(s). :)=0A= =0A= Alex=0A=