linux-kernel - Re: PCI bridge range sizing bug

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: <20070419234014.GB3215@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:40:14 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>, torvalds@...l.org
Cc:	Adam Jackson <ajackson@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PCI bridge range sizing bug

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:11:50PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:37 pm Adam Jackson wrote:
> > So I'm attempting to do something fairly heinous (X server across
> > five video cards), and I hit a fun bug in bridge range setup.  See
> > attached lspci and dmesg, but the short of it is I've got two VGA
> > chips on one card behind a bridge, which is itself behind a second
> > PCI bridge, and the bridge ranges get set up so that I can't map the
> > ROMs, which means I can't post them, and therefore can't use them
> > period.
> >
> > The alignment restriction on the ROMs seems a bit extreme:
> >
> > % sudo setpci -s 7:2 ROM_ADDRESS=ffffffff
> > % sudo setpci -s 7:2 ROM_ADDRESS
> > f0000001
> >
> > (same for 7:1) so that might be part of the problem.
> 
> ...
> Allocating PCI resources starting at 88000000 (gap: 80000000:7ff00000)
> ...
> 
> That's ~2G of space, which should be plenty for your PCI resources I 
> hope?  If you have a bunch of cards with large BARS though you might be 
> running out.
> 
> ...
> PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:01.0
>   IO window: 4000-4fff
>   MEM window: a3500000-a35fffff (1M)
>   PREFETCH window: 90000000-97ffffff
> PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:03.0
>   IO window: disabled.
>   MEM window: a3400000-a34fffff (1M)
>   PREFETCH window: 98000000-9fffffff
> PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:1c.0
>   IO window: disabled.
>   MEM window: a3300000-a33fffff (1M)
>   PREFETCH window: 80000000-8fffffff
> PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:1c.4
>   IO window: 3000-3fff
>   MEM window: a3200000-a32fffff (1M)
>   PREFETCH window: a3700000-a37fffff
> PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:1c.5
>   IO window: 2000-2fff
>   MEM window: a3100000-a31fffff (1M)
>   PREFETCH window: disabled.
> PCI: Failed to allocate mem resource #6:10000000@...00000 for 
> 0000:07:01.0
> PCI: Failed to allocate mem resource #6:10000000@...00000 for 
> 0000:07:02.0
> ...
> 
> Yep, looks like those two devices had a problem.  Supposedly they want 
> to sit at 256M?  Given that we're only giving each bridge 1M of memory 
> space that would definitely be a problem.
> 
> The total so far is only 5M of PCI space... so we're not making good use 
> of the 2G we were given.
> 
> ...
> PCI: Bridge: 0000:06:00.0
>   IO window: disabled.
>   MEM window: a1000000-a2ffffff (32M)
>   PREFETCH window: disabled.
> PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:1e.0
>   IO window: 1000-1fff
>   MEM window: a1000000-a30fffff (~32M)
>   PREFETCH window: a0000000-a0ffffff
> ...
> 
> And these bridges got more space somehow...  Greg who's in charge of our 
> bridge resource allocation code?

Ivan and Linus seem to be doing the most of the work in this area, I
gladly pass these issues on to them :)

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/