Your argumentation is flawed. You argue everything is safe when we have a reference implementation and two paragraphs later you argue that reference implementations are fundamentally broken (3.19 problem found in 3.21).
Its *not* a valid assumption to say that the ACPI implementation is ok just because one OS can boot. There should be a formal ACPI specification or at least a large test suite that checks if ACPI implementations behave sane.
And you are right that we should do it properly on ARM systems.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ACPI spec
Date: 2014-09-17 08:52 am (UTC)Its *not* a valid assumption to say that the ACPI implementation is ok just because one OS can boot. There should be a formal ACPI specification or at least a large test suite that checks if ACPI implementations behave sane.
And you are right that we should do it properly on ARM systems.