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  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, 26 Oct 2009 19:27:02 +0900
From:	Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: pciehp update the slot bridge res to get big range
 for pcie devices

Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>>>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>> move out bus_size_bridges and assign resources out of
>>>>> pciehp_add_bridge()
>>>>> and at last do them all together one time including slot bridge, to
>>>>> avoid to call
>>>>> assign resources several times, when there are several bridges under
>>>>> the slot bridge.
>>>>>
>>>>> need to introduce pci_bridge_assign_resources there.
>>>>>
>>>>> handle the case the first bridge that doesn't get pre-allocated big
>>>>> enough res from FW.
>>>>> for example pcie devices need 256M, but the bridge only get
>>>>> preallocated 2M...
>>>>>
>>>> Though I have not looked at the patch deeply yet (sorry), I have
>>>> some questions and concerns about this change. Please correct me
>>>> if my understanding is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> - Your patch doesn't seems to have the code to free resources.
>>>>  If we need to expand the resource range, don't we need to free
>>>>  preallocated resource before allocating the new one?
>>> that is done with pci_bus_size_bridges ==> pbus_size_io/pbus_size_mem
>>> ==> find_free_bus_resource ==> release_resource.
>>>
>> I didn't noticed that find_free_bus_resource() was changed to call
>> release_resource() recently...
>>
>> By the way, does this (release_resource() by find_bus_resource())
>> change the resource assignment by BIOS also for bridges other than
>> the ports with hotplug slot (switch upstreamport, for example)?
> 
> yes.
> 
> BIOS preallocate small range for the bridge, and leave the BAR for the device under that bridge uninitialized.
> 

Does this happen at the boot time regardless of hot-plug?


>>>> - Your patch seems to update BARs for bridge itself. I think it
>>>>  would break the bridge's driver (port service driver) that if
>>>>  it controls the device's capability by using IO/Mem, though I
>>>>  don't know if such driver or capabilities exists now.
>>> port service driver will be AER and pciehotplug.
>>> it seems those driver are not use those BAR...
>>> those BAR are supposed for the devices under the pcie bridge.
>>>
>> I understand that there are only two port service drivers (AER and
>> PCIe hotplug) and both doesn't use BAR. But I still have a concern
>> that changing bridge's BARs might cause problems in the future. In
>> my understanding, what you need is expanding IO/Mem base and limit
>> of root or switch downstream ports. If so, I think we should only
>> touch IO/Mem base/limit, and should not touch bridge's BARs.
> 
> those bridge BAR are for devices under that bridge. the port device is not supposed to use them.
>

Do you mean you touch only BARs of the devices under the bridge?

> if we don't touch the bridge's BAR, the hw will not forward the io for those devices under it.
> 

I understand you need to touch I/O base/limit and Mem base/limit. But
I don't understand why you also need to update bridge's BARs. Could
you please explain a little more about it?

Just in case, my terminology "bridge's BARs" is Base Address Register
0 (offset 0x10) and Base Address Register 1 (offset 0x14) in the
(type 1) configuration space header of the bridge.

Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists