linux-kernel - Re: drivers/pci/probe.c patch in 2.6.20.4 causes 'cannot adjust BAR0 (not I/O)' on NVidia MCP51

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]

Message-Id: <46078B46.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:58:46 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz" <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	"Kevin P. Fleming" <lkml@...leming.us>, "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Alan Cox" <alan@...hat.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: drivers/pci/probe.c patch in 2.6.20.4 causes 'cannot
	adjust BAR0 (not I/O)' on NVidia MCP51

>>> Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> 25.03.07 18:11 >>>
>On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:23:23AM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>> I just upgraded from 2.6.20.2 to 2.6.20.4 on my Compaq V6000 laptop,
>> which has an NVidia core chipset. It has the MCP51 and uses it for PATA
>> and SATA.
>> 
>> Booting the 2.6.20.4 kernel causes two messages (and a kernel lockup)
>> like this:
>> 
>> 0000:00:0d.0: cannot adjust BAR0 (not I/O)
>> 0000:00:0d.0: cannot adjust BAR1 (not I/O)
>> 
>> Booting without ACPI, without APIC, without LAPIC makes no usable
>> difference (although sometimes I will also receive a message about BAR2).
>> 
>> This patch:
>> 
>>
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=ed8ccee0918ad063a4741c0656fda783e02df627;hp=9e5755bce00bb563739aeb0f09932a1907521167

>> 
>> is the cause... backing it out results in a working 2.6.20.4 kernel on
>> my laptop.
>> 
>> I'll be happy to provide any assistance I can debugging this problem.
>
>Jan, any thoughts about this?
>
>Should this be backed out of the -stable releases?

I don't think so - the message (as Alan also said) tells the user that the
intended adjustment is *not* being done, kind of as a warning. I would
agree, though, that the flags adjustment (namely, adding
IORESOURCE_IO) is somewhat questionable; this isn't a change the
patch did, though, it was that way already before. But otoh with the
legacy flag set in progif, these BARs *should* be I/O ones...

Jan

-
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/