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: <4B27CEF8.9010303@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:01:28 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
CC:	Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko@...ulin.net>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: Are these MTRR settings correct?

Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Monday 14 December 2009 06:42:11 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> Robert Hancock wrote:
>>> Something else isn't quite right. It looks like MMCONFIG area should be
>>> reserved:
>>>
>>> [    0.308434] system 00:0c: iomem range 0xe0000000-0xefffffff has been
>>> reserved
>>>
>>> but the code didn't seem to detect that. In fact there doesn't seem to
>>> be any output about whether it was or wasn't reserved, which from the
>>> code it seems there should be.
>>>
>>> Maybe because of that ACPI method execution error?
>> could be sth pnpacpi brokenness?
> 
> Robert, I assume you're referring to this from Tvrtko's post
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/90):
> 
> [    0.000000]  BIOS-e820: 00000000dffd0000 - 00000000e0000000 (reserved)
> [    0.000000]  BIOS-e820: 00000000ff700000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
> ...
> [    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.
> ...
> [    0.253491] ACPI Error (psargs-0359): [ECEN] Namespace lookup failure, AE_NOT_FOUND
> [    0.253495] ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\] (Node ffffffff81656ab0), AE_NOT_FOUND
> ...
> [    0.308434] system 00:0c: iomem range 0xe0000000-0xefffffff has been reserved
> 
> I think we're rejecting MMCONFIG in the early call to
> pci_mmcfg_reject_broken(), when we check only E820 resources, not
> ACPI resources.  And indeed, the 0xe0000000-0xefffffff range is
> not mentioned in E820.  Which output did you expect to see?
> 
> I am uncomfortable with this early/late checking and looking at both
> E820 and ACPI.  It just feels hacky and error-prone.  I'm not happy about
> adding Yinghai's special-case "if we found AMD Fam10h, don't check for
> reservations" patch either.

only check ACPI or remove all hostbridge detect related?


YH
--
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/