linux-kernel - Re: Are these MTRR settings correct?

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: <4B2620C6.9050901@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:25:58 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>
CC:	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko@...ulin.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Are these MTRR settings correct?

Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On Sunday 13 December 2009 22:56:23 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> On Sunday 13 Dec 2009 09:25:33 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko@...ulin.net> 
> wrote:
>>>>> reg00: base=0x000000000 (    0MB), size= 2048MB, count=1: write-back
>>>>> reg01: base=0x080000000 ( 2048MB), size= 1024MB, count=1: write-back
>>>>> reg02: base=0x0c0000000 ( 3072MB), size=  256MB, count=1: write-back
>>>>> reg03: base=0x0f0000000 ( 3840MB), size=  128MB, count=1:
>>>>> write-combining
>>>>>
>>>>> Still looks like from 3328MB to 3840MB is of status unknown?
>>>>>
>>>>> dmesg in that case:
>>> [    0.250038] node 0 link 0: io port [1000, ffffff]
>>> [    0.250040] TOM: 00000000e0000000 aka 3584M
>>> [    0.250041] Fam 10h mmconf [e0000000, efffffff]
>>> [    0.250043] node 0 link 0: mmio [a0000, bffff]
>>> [    0.250045] node 0 link 0: mmio [e0000000, efffffff] ==> none
>>> [    0.250047] node 0 link 0: mmio [f0000000, fe7fffff]
>>> [    0.250048] node 0 link 0: mmio [fe800000, fe9fffff]
>>> [    0.250050] node 0 link 0: mmio [fea00000, ffefffff]
>>> [    0.250051] TOM2: 0000000120000000 aka 4608M
>>> [    0.250053] bus: [00,07] on node 0 link 0
>>> [    0.250054] bus: 00 index 0 io port: [0, ffff]
>>> [    0.250055] bus: 00 index 1 mmio: [a0000, bffff]
>>> [    0.250057] bus: 00 index 2 mmio: [f0000000, ffffffff]
>>> [    0.250058] bus: 00 index 3 mmio: [120000000, fcffffffff]
>>> [    0.250065] ACPI: bus type pci registered
>>> [    0.250088] PCI: Found AMD Family 10h NB with MMCONFIG support.
>>> [    0.250091] PCI: MCFG configuration 0: base e0000000 segment 0 buses 0
>>> - 255 [    0.250092] PCI: Not using MMCONFIG.
>>> [    0.250094] PCI: Using configuration type 1 for base access
>>> [    0.250095] PCI: Using configuration type 1 for extended access
>> something wrong, we should not check that with e820 or acpi resource in
>> that case. please check
>>
>> {PATCH] x86/pci: don't check mmconf again if it is from MSR with amd faml0h
>>
>> for AMD Fam10h, it we read mmconf from MSR early, we should just trust it
>> because we check it and correct it already.
>>
>> so skip the reject check there.
> 
> [path snipped]
> 
> Do you want me to test with this patch and that pci=.. option active and post 
> dmesg? Or without the pci=... option?
> 
with this patch and pci=... and post dmesg...

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/