lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:57:55 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> Cc: Edgar Hucek <hostmaster@...soft.at>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix boot on efi 32 bit Machines [try #4] In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607131507220.5623@...osdl.org> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:15:21 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > From kernel 2.6.16 to kernel 2.6.17 a new check is made. > > File arch/i386/pci/mmconfig.c -> funktion pci_mmcfg_init -> check e820_all_mapped > > The courios thing is that this check will always fail on the > > Intel Macs booted through efi. Parsing of the ACPI_MCFG table > > returns e0000000 for the start. But this location is > > not in the memory map which the efi firmware have : > > BIOS-EFI: 00000000e00f8000 - 00000000e00f9000 (reserved) > > It _sounds_ like you may not have converted all the EFI types > (EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY?), but regardless, I think it would be fine to have > perhaps a "PCI_FORCE_MMCONF" flag that avoided that sanity check, and then > you could have some code (either the EFI code _or_ some DMI code) that > sets it for the Intel Macs. > > Note that the check in pci_mmcfg_init() shouldn't be some EFI hack itself, > it would be a real flag for the PCI subsystem, independently of EFI (I can > see it being useful for a kernel command line option, even), and the only > EFI connection would be that perhaps the EFI code ends up setting that > flag (especially if there is some EFI command for doing this). > > Btw, if you do do this, I think we should make sure that the MMCONFIG base > address is reserved in the PCI MMIO resource structures (which we don't do > now, I think - part of the whole point of verifying that it's marked as > E820_RESERVED is exactly the fact that otherwise we migth have problems > with PCI MMIO resource allocations allocating a regular PCI resource over > the MMCONFIG space..) I just reposted Rajesh's patch for this (fixed the one previous complaint from the list.) Subj: [patch, take 3] PCI: use ACPI to verify extended config space on x86 Edgar, can you get it and test? Discussion should probably continue in that thread... -- Chuck "You can't read a newspaper if you can't read." --George W. Bush - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists