linux-kernel - Re: Are these MTRR settings correct?

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:42:11 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
CC:	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko@...ulin.net>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: Are these MTRR settings correct?

Robert Hancock wrote:
> On 12/14/2009 02:26 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> On Monday 14 Dec 2009 19:47:40 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>> On Monday 14 Dec 2009 11:25:58 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>> something wrong, we should not check that with e820 or acpi
>>>>>>>> resource
>>>>>>>> in that case. please check
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {PATCH] x86/pci: don't check mmconf again if it is from MSR with
>>>>>>>> amd
>>>>>>>> faml0h
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for AMD Fam10h, it we read mmconf from MSR early, we should just
>>>>>>>> trust
>>>>>>>> it because we check it and correct it already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so skip the reject check there.
>>>>>>> [path snipped]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you want me to test with this patch and that pci=.. option active
>>>>>>> and post dmesg? Or without the pci=... option?
>>>>>> with this patch and pci=... and post dmesg...
>>>>> Here you go:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> [    0.250041] node 0 link 0: io port [1000, ffffff]
>>>>> [    0.250043] TOM: 00000000e0000000 aka 3584M
>>>>> [    0.250044] Fam 10h mmconf [e0000000, efffffff]
>>>>> [    0.250046] node 0 link 0: mmio [a0000, bffff]
>>>>> [    0.250048] node 0 link 0: mmio [e0000000, efffffff] ==>  none
>>>>> [    0.250050] node 0 link 0: mmio [f0000000, fe7fffff]
>>>>> [    0.250051] node 0 link 0: mmio [fe800000, fe9fffff]
>>>>> [    0.250053] node 0 link 0: mmio [fea00000, ffefffff]
>>>>> [    0.250054] TOM2: 0000000120000000 aka 4608M
>>>>> [    0.250056] bus: [00,07] on node 0 link 0
>>>>> [    0.250057] bus: 00 index 0 io port: [0, ffff]
>>>>> [    0.250058] bus: 00 index 1 mmio: [a0000, bffff]
>>>>> [    0.250060] bus: 00 index 2 mmio: [f0000000, ffffffff]
>>>>> [    0.250061] bus: 00 index 3 mmio: [120000000, fcffffffff]
>>>>> [    0.250068] ACPI: bus type pci registered
>>>>> [    0.250091] PCI: Found AMD Family 10h NB with MMCONFIG support.
>>>>> [    0.254793] PCI: Using MMCONFIG at e0000000 - efffffff
>>>>> [    0.254795] PCI: Using configuration type 1 for base access
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> thanks, mmconf works on your system.
>>>
>>> So I should keep using both your patch and
>>> pci=check_enable_amd_mmconf option?
>>>
>>
>> I will push the driver to Jesse.
>>
>> but you need to have pci=check_enable_amd_mmconf, unless we add one
>> DMI entry for your kind of system.
> 
> Something else isn't quite right. It looks like MMCONFIG area should be
> reserved:
> 
> [    0.308434] system 00:0c: iomem range 0xe0000000-0xefffffff has been
> reserved
> 
> but the code didn't seem to detect that. In fact there doesn't seem to
> be any output about whether it was or wasn't reserved, which from the
> code it seems there should be.
> 
> Maybe because of that ACPI method execution error?
> 

could be sth pnpacpi brokenness?

YH
--
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/