linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: intel bus root res with IOH reading -v2

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:	Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:49:18 -0700
From:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: intel bus root res with IOH reading -v2

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:34:53 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 06 October 2009 11:51:22 am Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 04 October 2009 10:54:24 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > > >> for intel system with multi IOH. we could read peer root
> > > >> resource from PCI conf, and don't trust _CRS again for root bus
> > > > 
> > > > Ugh.  Are we going to end up with amd_bus.c, intel_bus.c,
> > > > nvidia_bus.c, broadcom_bus.c, serverworks_bus.c, etc.?
> > > only needed when you have muti ...
> > 
> > I think that translates to "yes, we will need all those bits as
> > soon as those vendors support larger systems with multiple IOHs."
> > And I think that's the wrong answer.
> 
> Why is having cleanly separated per vendor information/driver wrong?
> I think it's the right answer in most cases. _Especially_ when the
> other option is to 'rely on the firmware'.
> 
> > > again we should trust HW conf than BIOS.
> > 
> > Certainly there's a tradeoff between a generic driver that relies
> > on the BIOS, and a platform-specific driver that uses only the
> > hardware. The first leaves us vulnerable to BIOS bugs, but the
> > second leads to a plethora of drivers that require updates as
> > hardware changes.
> 
> We do that quite well in Linux - it's one of our main strengths.
> 
> Why should we have to rely on correct firmware? Why is it wrong to
> know about the hw's structure, to query the hardware and ignore the
> firmware if the hardware state tells us otherwise?

Right, I think the approaches are complimentary.  We want the hw info,
for cases where the fw is broken or there's no support for a given
configuration, but we also want the fw info for cases where we don't
yet have hw info (e.g. the bridge driver isn't updated) or it isn't
complete.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/