| 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: <1309941030.634.157.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:30:30 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@...hang.net>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [TOME] Re: [PATCH] Modpost section mismatch fix
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 22:32 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:48:46AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > >>xen_register_gsi and hence, xen_register_pirq are called from
> > > >>init (with xen_setup_acpi_sci) and non-init (with
> > > >>acpi_register_gsi_xen); since xen_set_acpi_sci calls it with gsi ==
> > > >>acpi_sci_override_gsi and is marked __init, the best way would be to
> > > >>call xen_register_gsi and xen_register_pirq with a boolean argument like
> > > >>sci_override to obviate the need to use acpi_sci_override_gsi in
> > > >>register_pirq. I will send the patch with this change if it looks good.
> > > >
> > > >Hold on, let me rebase #stable/pci.cleanups and see if the issue
> > > >here disappears.
> > > Thanks, will wait until the rebase and test after that.
> >
> > Hm, it actually looks like it wont do the trick. Why don't you send
> > a patch against 3.0-rc6 with the outlined mechanism mentioned above.
>
> Or this patch (against 3.0-rc6) might do the trick:
Based on my limited understanding it looks like it would to me.
But is there some downside to always unconditionally calling
acpi_gsi_to_irq in xen_register_pirq? It seems like it returns the
expected mapping except where explicit overrides (such as this SCI
thing) exist?
Ian.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> index fe00830..f567965 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> @@ -327,13 +327,12 @@ int __init pci_xen_hvm_init(void)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_DOM0
> -static int xen_register_pirq(u32 gsi, int triggering)
> +static int xen_register_pirq(u32 gsi, int gsi_override, int triggering)
> {
> int rc, pirq, irq = -1;
> struct physdev_map_pirq map_irq;
> int shareable = 0;
> char *name;
> - bool gsi_override = false;
>
> if (!xen_pv_domain())
> return -1;
> @@ -345,31 +344,12 @@ static int xen_register_pirq(u32 gsi, int triggering)
> shareable = 1;
> name = "ioapic-level";
> }
> -
> pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_gsi(gsi);
> if (pirq < 0)
> goto out;
>
> - /* Before we bind the GSI to a Linux IRQ, check whether
> - * we need to override it with bus_irq (IRQ) value. Usually for
> - * IRQs below IRQ_LEGACY_IRQ this holds IRQ == GSI, as so:
> - * ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 9 global_irq 9 low level)
> - * but there are oddballs where the IRQ != GSI:
> - * ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 9 global_irq 20 low level)
> - * which ends up being: gsi_to_irq[9] == 20
> - * (which is what acpi_gsi_to_irq ends up calling when starting the
> - * the ACPI interpreter and keels over since IRQ 9 has not been
> - * setup as we had setup IRQ 20 for it).
> - */
> - if (gsi == acpi_sci_override_gsi) {
> - /* Check whether the GSI != IRQ */
> - acpi_gsi_to_irq(gsi, &irq);
> - if (irq != gsi)
> - /* Bugger, we MUST have that IRQ. */
> - gsi_override = true;
> - }
> - if (gsi_override)
> - irq = xen_bind_pirq_gsi_to_irq(irq, pirq, shareable, name);
> + if (gsi_override >= 0)
> + irq = xen_bind_pirq_gsi_to_irq(gsi_override, pirq, shareable, name);
> else
> irq = xen_bind_pirq_gsi_to_irq(gsi, pirq, shareable, name);
> if (irq < 0)
> @@ -392,7 +372,7 @@ out:
> return irq;
> }
>
> -static int xen_register_gsi(u32 gsi, int triggering, int polarity)
> +static int xen_register_gsi(u32 gsi, int gsi_override, int triggering, int polarity)
> {
> int rc, irq;
> struct physdev_setup_gsi setup_gsi;
> @@ -403,7 +383,7 @@ static int xen_register_gsi(u32 gsi, int triggering, int polarity)
> printk(KERN_DEBUG "xen: registering gsi %u triggering %d polarity %d\n",
> gsi, triggering, polarity);
>
> - irq = xen_register_pirq(gsi, triggering);
> + irq = xen_register_pirq(gsi, gsi_override, triggering);
>
> setup_gsi.gsi = gsi;
> setup_gsi.triggering = (triggering == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE ? 0 : 1);
> @@ -425,6 +405,8 @@ static __init void xen_setup_acpi_sci(void)
> int rc;
> int trigger, polarity;
> int gsi = acpi_sci_override_gsi;
> + int irq = -1;
> + int gsi_override = -1;
>
> if (!gsi)
> return;
> @@ -441,7 +423,25 @@ static __init void xen_setup_acpi_sci(void)
> printk(KERN_INFO "xen: sci override: global_irq=%d trigger=%d "
> "polarity=%d\n", gsi, trigger, polarity);
>
> - gsi = xen_register_gsi(gsi, trigger, polarity);
> + /* Before we bind the GSI to a Linux IRQ, check whether
> + * we need to override it with bus_irq (IRQ) value. Usually for
> + * IRQs below IRQ_LEGACY_IRQ this holds IRQ == GSI, as so:
> + * ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 9 global_irq 9 low level)
> + * but there are oddballs where the IRQ != GSI:
> + * ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 9 global_irq 20 low level)
> + * which ends up being: gsi_to_irq[9] == 20
> + * (which is what acpi_gsi_to_irq ends up calling when starting the
> + * the ACPI interpreter and keels over since IRQ 9 has not been
> + * setup as we had setup IRQ 20 for it).
> + */
> + /* Check whether the GSI != IRQ */
> + if (acpi_gsi_to_irq(gsi, &irq) == 0) {
> + if (irq >= 0 && irq != gsi)
> + /* Bugger, we MUST have that IRQ. */
> + gsi_override = irq;
> + }
> +
> + gsi = xen_register_gsi(gsi, gsi_override, trigger, polarity);
> printk(KERN_INFO "xen: acpi sci %d\n", gsi);
>
> return;
> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ static __init void xen_setup_acpi_sci(void)
> static int acpi_register_gsi_xen(struct device *dev, u32 gsi,
> int trigger, int polarity)
> {
> - return xen_register_gsi(gsi, trigger, polarity);
> + return xen_register_gsi(gsi, -1 /* no GSI override */, trigger, polarity);
> }
>
> static int __init pci_xen_initial_domain(void)
> @@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ void __init xen_setup_pirqs(void)
> if (acpi_get_override_irq(irq, &trigger, &polarity) == -1)
> continue;
>
> - xen_register_pirq(irq,
> + xen_register_pirq(irq, -1 /* no GSI override */,
> trigger ? ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE : ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE);
> }
> }
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
--
Ian Campbell
While having never invented a sin, I'm trying to perfect several.
--
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