[PATCH] apci: checksum: RSDT and XSDT checksum failures should not be critical (LP: #1013168)

[Alex Hung]

On 06/18/2012 04:01 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 18/06/12 03:38, Alex Hung wrote:
>> On 06/14/2012 10:06 PM, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King<colin.king at canonical.com>
>>>
>>> It seems that the kernel is quite happy to handle RSDT and XSDT tables
>>> that
>>> fail on their checksum checks, so lets not fail these as critical
>>> failures
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King<colin.king at canonical.com>
>>> ---
>>> src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c | 41
>>> +++++++----------------------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c b/src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c
>>> index 264e7d0..2c41cce 100644
>>> --- a/src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c
>>> +++ b/src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c
>>> @@ -89,16 +89,6 @@ static void checksum_rsdp(fwts_framework *fw,
>>> fwts_acpi_table_info *table)
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> -/*
>>> - * The following tables the kernel requires the checksum to be valid
>>> otherwise
>>> - * it will not load them, so checksum failures here are considered
>>> critical errors.
>>> - */
>>> -static char *critical_checksum[] = {
>>> - "RSDT",
>>> - "XSDT",
>>> - NULL
>>> -};
>>> -
>>> static int checksum_scan_tables(fwts_framework *fw)
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>> @@ -131,35 +121,18 @@ static int checksum_scan_tables(fwts_framework
>>> *fw)
>>> fwts_passed(fw, "Table %s has correct checksum 0x%x.",
>>> table->name, hdr->checksum);
>>> else {
>>> - int i;
>>> - int log_level = LOG_LEVEL_LOW;
>>> -
>>> - for (i = 0; critical_checksum[i]; i++) {
>>> - if (!strcmp(table->name, critical_checksum[i])) {
>>> - log_level = LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL;
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - fwts_failed(fw, log_level, "ACPITableChecksum",
>>> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_LOW, "ACPITableChecksum",
>>> "Table %s has incorrect checksum, "
>>> "expected 0x%2.2x, got 0x%2.2x.",
>>> table->name, (uint8_t)(hdr->checksum-checksum),
>>> hdr->checksum);
>>>
>>> - /* Give some contextual explanation of the error */
>>> - if (log_level == LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL)
>>> - fwts_advice(fw,
>>> - "The kernel requires this table to have a "
>>> - "valid checksum and will not load it. This "
>>> - "will lead to ACPI not working correctly.");
>>> - else
>>> - fwts_advice(fw,
>>> - "The kernel will warn that this table has "
>>> - "an invalid checksum but will ignore the "
>>> - "error and still load it. This is not a "
>>> - "critical issue, but should be fixed if "
>>> - "possible to avoid the warning messages.");
>>> + fwts_advice(fw,
>>> + "The kernel will warn that this table has "
>>> + "an invalid checksum but will ignore the "
>>> + "error and still load it. This is not a "
>>> + "critical issue, but should be fixed if "
>>> + "possible to avoid the warning messages.");
>>>
>>> fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_TABLE_CHECKSUM);
>>> }
>>
>> If checksum is incorrect, that means it cannot be determined whether the
>> table is still trustworthy. It is known that kernel will ignore the
>> error and therefore it is not critical; however, will it be better to
>> make the level to high or medium so the bug will be highlighted and
>> fixed?
>>
>> After all, the error means a system does not meet ACPI specification.
>
> Well, I'm OK with HIGH, or MEDIUM, I suspect MEDIUM is better because it
> isn't a show-stopper of a bug, but it still need some attention. I can
> re-send with this level increased if you think that is better.

I agree that MEDIUM is a better choice too although I would hope BIOS 
engineers to take it more seriously...

Thanks, Colin.


>
> Colin
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Alex Hung
>>
>