linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] PCI mmconfig without ACPI

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: <20090204181738.GA16174@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:17:38 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Ed Swierk <eswierk@...stanetworks.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] PCI mmconfig without ACPI

* Ed Swierk <eswierk@...stanetworks.com> wrote:

> Make it possible to use memory-mapped PCI configuration space on systems 
> with a supported PCI host bridge without CONFIG_ACPI.
> 
> The acpi_mcfg_allocation struct serves double duty, as a template for 
> parsing the ACPI MCFG table and also to store the mmconfig data, which 
> doesn't necessarily come from ACPI.  Should I leave the struct in 
> acpi/actbl1.h for ACPI parsing, and create a new one for storing mmconfig 
> data?

ok, that's certainly a nice cleanup and restructuring of this code.

A few comments:

>  config PCI_MMCONFIG
>  	def_bool y
> -	depends on X86_32 && PCI && ACPI && (PCI_GOMMCONFIG || PCI_GOANY)
> +	depends on X86_32 && PCI && (PCI_GOMMCONFIG || PCI_GOANY)

( nice - increasing a PCI feature's reach and decoupling it from hardware 
  enumeration methods such as ACPI is always good news! )

> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +
>  static acpi_status __init check_mcfg_resource(struct acpi_resource *res,
>  					      void *data)

An even cleaner approach would be to create a new file: 

arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-acpi.c, and move this block of 5 functions there - and 
add a obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) rule to arch/x86/pci/Makefile to build it.

The interfacing to arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c could be simplified too, 
instead of this two-pass thing:

        if (!known_bridge) {
                acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, acpi_parse_mcfg);
                pci_mmcfg_reject_broken(early);
        }

a single:

	if (!known_bridge)
		pci_detect_acpi_mmcfg(early);

interface could be used. In the !CONFIG_ACPI case this interface would be an 
inline do-nothing wrapper, in a pci x86 header file:

  static inline void pci_detect_acpi_mmcfg(int early) { }

A few currently local symbols in the file would have to be made explicit and 
moved into the header - but it should be rather straightforward i think.

That way we avoid the ugly #ifdef and clean up the general code structure 
and modularization a bit.

this #ifdef would go away as well:

> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>  	if (!known_bridge) {
>  		acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_MCFG, acpi_parse_mcfg);
>  		pci_mmcfg_reject_broken(early);
>  	}
> +#endif

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MMCONFIG
> +
> +struct acpi_mcfg_allocation {
> +	u64 address;		/* Base address, processor-relative */
> +	u16 pci_segment;	/* PCI segment group number */
> +	u8 start_bus_number;	/* Starting PCI Bus number */
> +	u8 end_bus_number;	/* Final PCI Bus number */
> +	u32 reserved;
> +};

Please rename this to "struct pci_mcfg_allocation" - there's nothing ACPI 
about it anymore - mmcfg is a PCI feature and ACPI is an enumeration method.

Also, while touching it, please also use the opportunity to align structure 
fields vertically:

 struct pci_mcfg_allocation {
	u64	address;		/* Base address, processor-relative */
	u16	pci_segment;		/* PCI segment group number */
	u8	start_bus_number;	/* Starting PCI Bus number */
	u8	end_bus_number;		/* Final PCI Bus number */
	u32	__reserved;
 };

The whole layout of this structure becomes easier to read and nicer to look 
at as well.

Another small detail: note how i renamed reserved to __reserved - that is a 
standard way to de-emphasise the signficance of a structure field.

The reserved field there is for future expansion and to pad the structure to 
16 bytes - it doesnt really mean much and the underscores move it a bit out 
of the default line of sight.

With a 'reserved' field people end up wondering whether it's perhaps some 
_semantic_ 'reserved area' kind of thing (like for e820 maps, etc.) - so 
it's never bad to make that distinction explicit via the double underscores.

But again, nice patch and it would be nice to see this concept hit mainline.

	Ingo
--
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/