Christian Zietz writes:
> I'm subscribed to the list now, so need to CC anymore.
> Egbert Eich schrieb:
> > This could easily be integrated in the driver (it would be much more
> > easy to do than writing a separate program) but like you say in your
> > disclaimer: we cannot guarantee that nothing bad happens. Therefore
> > I don't think it is the way to go.
> Well, of course it has to be thoroughly tested but I don't think what my
> program does is riskier than the stuff other drivers based on
> reverse-engineering do.
> A safer method might be to keep a list of known BIOSes and the location
> to patch instead of calculating that location based on a string with a
> fixed offset.
One could verify if the current value in this location really matches
the value reported by the BIOS.
It would be the 'last fallback' which needs to be enabled by an
I would like to know if the people from the desktop department from
Intel would be happy with such a solution. If so, I'd add the code.
> > However what I find more interesting is that you updated the BIOS with
> > one form the Intel web site.
> Sorry, perhaps my initial message was somewhat unclear in that point. I
> didn't update the BIOS (that's really risky since the BIOS needs to be
> configured for a the given hardware, one configuration bit set wrong and
> your system might not be able to boot anymore). I just disassembled it
> and found that the code responsible for the issue is the same and that
> my method to calculate the address to patch works, too.
OK, that makes sense.
Devel mailing list