linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] PCI: restrict subordinate buses to those reachable via host bridge

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]

Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:23:10 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
	Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] PCI: restrict subordinate buses to those reachable
 via host bridge

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>> please check attached patch.
>
> It's a pain to comment on attached patches vs. inline ones.

Sorry, gmail does not allow inline patch.

>
> You added bus_max to pci_scan_root_bus().  I'd prefer to pass a
> pointer to a struct resource, as we do for io & mem resources.

Well that depends.

> I'd
> like to move away from pci_scan_root_bus() and toward a
> pci_scan_host_bridge() (as in the patches I posted) that takes all the
> host bridge-related info: parent, domain, resources (including bus
> number range), ops, sysdata.  I don't like the current scheme of
> "create it with defaults and fix them later."

No, struct host bridge is bad idea.  you are tracking host bridge and
peer root bus the same time.

>
> The printk %pR format supports bus numbers so you don't need to print
> them by hand.

later. will remove the debug print.

>
> struct pci_bus already has secondary & subordinate.  I don't think
> adding a "struct resource busn_res" adds useful information except for
> the root bus, where the bus number range comes from something external
> like _CRS rather than from the upstream bridge config.

no, we need that to tracking the busn usage. aka insert them into
iobusn_resource tree.

late it should be convert to list head even. for handling transparent bridge.

>
> This makes pci_scan_bridge() significantly more ugly than it already
> is.  I think it needs to get broken up.

Sure.

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/