linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, ioapic: Reserve only 128 bytes for IOAPICs

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: <20110826180930.GA1930@sun>
Date:	Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:09:30 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ralf Jung <ralfjung-e@....de>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, ioapic: Reserve only 128 bytes for IOAPICs

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:21:02AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
...
> >
> > Which means, I would prefer if we have (since we change IO_APIC_SLOT_SIZE
> > anyway) some additional check and WARN_ON in this code. Something like
> >
> >  if (io-apic-base-address & 0x3ff)
> >   WARN_ON();
> >
> > Hm? (also we have bad_ioapic() check, probably should put such test
> > there instead).
> 
> Is there some spec that requires all IOAPICs to be 1K aligned?  I
> don't doubt that's the case; I'd just like to see something more
> concrete than folklore.  I'm pretty sure there's some (possibly
> secret) "IOAPIC architecture spec," and a section reference to it
> would be nice.  Even before my patch, I don't think we actually
> checked or enforced any *alignment* -- we only set the size.  I don't
> know if it's worth it unless we have a problem it would fix, and it's
> conceivable that we'd start warning about a perfectly functional
> IOAPIC that's 128-byte aligned.
> 
> Bjorn

Yes, one of the spec is Intel's MP specification (as far as I remember).
Letme re-check...

 | 3.6.5 APIC Memory Mapping
 |
 | "Unlike the local APICs, the I/O APICs are mapped to give shared access from all
 | processors, providing full symmetric I/O access. The default base address for the
 | first I/O APIC is 0FEC0_0000h. Subsequent I/O APIC addresses are assigned in
 | 4K increments. For example, the second I/O APIC is at 0FEC0_1000h. Non-default
 | APIC base addresses can be used if the MP configuration table is provided.
 | (Refer to Chapter 4.) However, the local APIC base address must be aligned
 | on a 4K boundary, and the I/O APIC base address must be aligned on a 1K
 | boundary."

Ie -- 4K increment with 1K base address. If I find other sources I have in mind
I'll ping you.

	Cyrill
--
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/