On 2015/1/21 8:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, January 08, 2015 10:32:59 AM Jiang Liu wrote: >> Enforce stricter checks for address space descriptors according to >> ACPI spec. > > So is the spec the only reason for doing this? If so, I'd say don't. Hi Rafael, Yes, it's just for spec. I will drop this patch to avoid regressions. Regards! Gerry > >> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/resource.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/resource.c b/drivers/acpi/resource.c >> index 26b47f1da523..e82149e44347 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/resource.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/resource.c >> @@ -192,6 +192,14 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct resource *res, >> bool wp = base->info.mem.write_protect; >> u64 len = addr->address_length; >> >> + /* >> + * Filter out invalid descriptor according to ACPI Spec 5.0, section >> + * 6.4.3.5 Address Space Resource Descriptors. >> + */ >> + if ((base->min_address_fixed != base->max_address_fixed && len) || >> + (base->min_address_fixed && base->max_address_fixed && !len)) >> + return false; >> + >> res->start = addr->minimum; >> res->end = addr->maximum; >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
