linux-kernel - Re: Please revert: PCI: fix IDE legacy mode resources

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:	Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:24:51 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:	Yoichi Yuasa <yoichi_yuasa@...peaks.co.jp>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Please revert: PCI: fix IDE legacy mode resources

On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 02:12 +0000, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> So where do we stand with this?
> 
> As I understand the Cobalt system controller it is not possible to address
> ioport addresses below 0x10000000 at all on the PCI bus of the GT-64111.
> As such I think the best solution is a GT-64111-specific PCI fixup to
> clear out legacy resources.  The IDE controller in the VIA VT82C586 could
> then be used only by its normal that is non-legacy address and
> commit fd6e732186ab522c812ab19c2c5e5befb8ec8115 could be reverted and PPC
> would be happy too?

If that is the case though (that is it can't issue low ioport cycles),
how would have the fd6e7321...  worked in the first place ? Hrm...
strange. My understanding is that all that patch does is put junk in the
pci_dev resource structures :-) Maybe that's enough to cause the PCI
layer later on to be unhappy about them and reassign the BARs to some
place that works ? In which case, you are right, a better approach is a
quirk on this specific platform, or even better, mark 0...0x10000000
busy in ioport_resources and let the generic code clash & re-assign...

I must admit I'm a bit confused tho...

Anyway, so far, nobody is arguing in favor of keeping this patch in nor
so far trying and explanation on why it wouldn't be totally bogus, so I
suggest we revert it :-)

Cheers,
Ben.

--
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/