linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/4] acpi: ioapic: Respect the resource flags

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:	Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:46:31 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] acpi: ioapic: Respect the resource flags

On 2014/12/12 15:53, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>> +static inline bool is_valid_mem_resource(struct resource *res)
>>> +{
>>> +       return !(res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED) &&
>>> +               (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM);
>>> +}
>>> +
>> There is minor problem about mem pref handling, original code will ignore them.
> 
> Bah. I missed that in that well documented function...
> 
>> with this patch will let it follow through.
>>
>> should change is_valid_mem_resource to is_valid_mem_nonpref_resource()...
>>
>> +static inline bool is_valid_mem_nonpref_resource(struct resource *res)
>>  {
>>         return !(res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED) &&
>> -               (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM);
>> +               (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) &&
>> +               !(res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH);
>>  }
> 
> Unfortunately that does not help, because nothing sets the
> IORESOURCE_PREFETCH flag. Will fix it proper.
> 
> I still have no explanation why the translation offset needs to be
> applied here.
Hi Thomas,
	I have read related section in ACPI spec, seems the addition
of translation_offset is redundant here.

Quotation from ACPI spec 5a, 6.4.3.5.1
For bridges that translate addresses across the bridge, this is the
offset that must be added to the address on the secondary side to
obtain the address on the primary side. Non-bridge devices must list
0 for all Address Translation offset bits.

Quotation from ACPI spec 5, 9.17 I/O APIC Device:
It must also contain a _CRS object that reports the base address of the
I/O APIC device. The _CRS object is required to contain only one
resource, a memory resource pointing to the I/O APIC register base.

IO APIC is not a bridge, so translation_offset should always be zero.
Thanks!
Gerry

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
--
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/