Hi Mark,
On 19 January 2017 at 19:16, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 06:32:55PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 19 January 2017 at 17:11, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 2017/1/18 21:25, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> >> + else if (!gtdt->platform_timer_count)
>> >> + pr_debug("No Platform Timer.\n");
>> >> + else
>> >> + timer_count = gtdt->platform_timer_count;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (timer_count) {
>> >> + platform_timer = (void *)gtdt +
>> >> gtdt->platform_timer_offset;
>> >> + if (platform_timer < (void *)table +
>> >> + sizeof(struct acpi_table_gtdt)) {
>> >> + pr_err(FW_BUG "invalid timer data.\n");
>> >
>> >
>> > It's ok but I didn't see other ACPI tables parsing did this check,
>> > maybe we can just remove it :)
>>
>> here, I want to make sure the FW is valid.
>> Once there is a FW bug, we could just return with error. :-)
>
> Yes, please keep the check!
Yes, we will keep this check :-)
Thanks!
>
> If anything, it would be nicer for the other ACPI code to verify things
> a little more stringently.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat
--
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
