linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/11] PCI: Try to allocate mem64 above 4G at first

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: <CAErSpo5-Wypc8LMfgE51=Ob0UV1ky9QxKTtaAigU8YyNcXxiQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2012 16:14:53 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Newbury <steve@...wbury.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] PCI: Try to allocate mem64 above 4G at first

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 05/25/2012 02:55 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>
>> I think we actually have a separate bug here.  On 64-bit non-x86
>> architectures, PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32 is a 64-bit -1, so the following
>> attempt to avoid putting a 32-bit BAR above 4G only works on x86,
>> where PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32 is 0xffffffff.
>>
>>         /* don't allocate too high if the pref mem doesn't support 64bit*/
>>         if (!(res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64))
>>                 max = PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32;
>>
>> I think we should fix this with a separate patch that removes
>> PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32 altogether, replacing this use with an explicit
>> 0xffffffff (or some other "max 32-bit value" symbol).  I don't think
>> there's anything arch-specific about this.
>>
>> So I'd like to see two patches here:
>>   1) Avoid allocating 64-bit regions for 32-bit BARs
>>   2) Try to allocate regions above 4GB for 64-bit BARs
>
> Do we also need to track the maximum address available to the CPU?

We are allocating from the resources available on this bus, which
means the host bridge apertures or a subset.  If the arch supplies
those, that should be enough.  If it doesn't, we default to
iomem_resource.  On x86, we trim that down to only the supported
address space:

        iomem_resource.end = (1ULL << boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits) - 1;

But I'm sure some other architectures don't do that yet.  I guess
that's one of the risks -- if an arch is doesn't tell us the apertures
and doesn't trim iomem_resource, we could allocate a non-addressable
region.

Bjorn
--
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/