| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=jTKp9+_KDmTxYfGXe6Ln02GLmDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:53:47 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To: Jan Zwiegers <jan@...icalsystems.co.za>
Cc: Xianghua Xiao <xiaoxianghua@...il.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PCI BAR1 Unassigned
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Jan Zwiegers <jan@...icalsystems.co.za> wrote:
> On 2011-05-19 10:50 PM, Xianghua Xiao wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Jan Zwiegers<jan@...icalsystems.co.za>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-05-19 08:50 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Jan Zwiegers<jan@...icalsystems.co.za>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the problem below where my PCI card's second BAR does not get
>>>>> assigned.
>>>>> What can be the cause of this problem?
>>>>> The last kernel I tested on which worked OK was 2.6.27.
>>>>> My current problematic kernel 2.6.35.
>>>>>
>>>>> 05:01.0 Unassigned class [ff00]: Eagle Technology PCI-703 Analog I/O
>>>>> Card
>>>>> (rev 5c)
>>>>> Flags: bus master, slow devsel, latency 32, IRQ 22
>>>>> Memory at 93b00000 (type 3, prefetchable) [size=2K]
>>>>> Memory at<unassigned> (type 3, prefetchable)
>>>>> Capabilities: [80] #00 [0600]
>>>>> Kernel modules: pci703drv
>>>>
>>>> Could be resource exhaustion or, more likely, we ran out because we
>>>> now assign resource to things that don't need them, leaving none for
>>>> things that *do* need them. This sounds like a regression, so we
>>>> should open a bugzilla for it and attach dmesg logs from 2.6.27 and
>>>> 2.6.35.
>>>>
>>>> Does this problem keep the driver from working? (Sometimes drivers
>>>> don't actually use all the BARs a device supports.)
>>>>
>>>> Bjorn
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm the maintainer of the driver and was involved in the development of
>>> the
>>> board as well in 2003. The board uses two BARS and the second BAR is the
>>> most important. The board worked fine since the 2.4 days and only
>>> recently
>>> became problematic. I suspect it works on even later kernels than 27,
>>> maybe
>>> 2.6.32.
>>>
>>> My knowledge is too little to actually determine if the problem is
>>> because
>>> the FPGA based PCI interface is not within spec or something that changed
>>> in
>>> the kernel, because of the post .30 releases becoming more strict to PCI
>>> specification, i.e. BIOS / Kernel interaction.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>
>> What's the size for BAR1? one reason is that no more space to
>> align/allocate BAR1.
>>
>> If the board stays the same then your FPGA might be the cause, I have
>> seen similar issues and they ended up in FPGA implementation.
>>
>
> I have submitted the difference in iomem, lspci and dmesg of 2.6.27 & 2.6.35
> kernels from the same machine. The BAR size is 2K. As above BAR0 is at
> 93b0000 and BAR1 should be at 93b00800.
Thanks for the data.
I think your FPGA is "unusual" after all. lspci says this:
05:01.0 Unassigned class [ff00]: Eagle Technology PCI-703 Analog I/O
Card (rev 5c)
Flags: bus master, slow devsel, latency 32, IRQ 22
Memory at 93b00000 (type 3, prefetchable) [size=2K]
Memory at <unassigned> (type 3, prefetchable)
The "type 3" means the BAR has both type bits set (bits 1 and 2). The
spec (PCI 3.0 sec 6.2.5.1) says the type field means:
00 - Locate anywhere in 32-bit access space
01 - Reserved
10 - Locate anywhere in 64-bit access space
11 - Reserved
I think your BARs are using the "11 - Reserved" setting when they
should be "00". The way Linux handles this did change between 2.6.27
and 2.6.35, and I think the change was unintentional, so we might
consider changing it back.
Commit e354597cce8d219d made this change to decode_bar():
res->flags = bar & ~PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
- if (res->flags == PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64)
+ if (res->flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64)
return pci_bar_mem64;
return pci_bar_mem32;
In 2.6.27, we treated the BAR as 64-bit only if the low four bits were
0100 (non-prefetchable, 64-bit type, memory). That was incorrect,
because we should ignore the prefetchable bit. The fix was to look
*only* at bit 2, so now we decide the BAR is 64-bit if the low four
bits are x1xx.
Your BARs contain 1110 in the low four bits. This is invalid but was
treated as 32-bit by 2.6.27 and as 64-bit by 2.6.35.
Here's an untested Linux change I think we might consider making to
restore the previous behavior. Can you try it (gmail will probably
mangle it, so you'll have to apply it by hand)?
diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c
index 44cbbba..33894ba 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
@@ -138,15 +138,20 @@ static u64 pci_size(u64 base, u64 maxbase, u64 mask)
static inline enum pci_bar_type decode_bar(struct resource *res, u32 bar)
{
+ u32 mem_type;
+
if ((bar & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE) == PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_IO) {
res->flags = bar & ~PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_IO_MASK;
return pci_bar_io;
}
- res->flags = bar & ~PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
+ res->flags = bar & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_PREFETCH;
- if (res->flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64)
+ mem_type = bar & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_MASK;
+ if (mem_type == PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) {
+ res->flags |= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64;
return pci_bar_mem64;
+ }
return pci_bar_mem32;
}
--
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