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: <CAErSpo7ivA4NpTv8jT=sxe9qAEZZ89qm6km+WBGq1UZK1Uhz8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jun 2012 21:50:42 -0700
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	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 Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The bus-side address space should not be more than 32 bits no matter
>>>> what.  As Bjorn indicates, you seem to be mixing up bus and cpu
>>>> addresses all over the place.
>>>
>>> please check update patches that is using converted pci bus address
>>> for boundary checking.
>>
>> What problem does this fix?  There's significant risk that this
>> allocation change  will make us trip over something, so it must fix
>> something to make it worth considering.
>
> If we do not enable that, we would not find the problem.

Sorry, that didn't make any sense to me.  I'm hoping you will point us
to a bug report that is fixed by this patch.

> On one my test setup that _CRS does state 64bit resource range,
> but when I clear some device resource manually and let kernel allocate
> high, just then find out those devices does not work with drivers.
> It turns out _CRS have more big range than what the chipset setting states.
> with fixing in BIOS, allocate high is working now on that platform.

I didn't understand this either, sorry.  Are you saying that this
patch helps us work around a BIOS defect?

>> Steve's problem doesn't count because that's a "pci=nocrs" case that
>> will always require special handling.
>
> but pci=nocrs is still supported, even some systems does not work with
> pci=use_crs
>
>> A general solution is not
>> possible without a BIOS change (to describe >4GB apertures) or a
>> native host bridge driver (to discover >4GB apertures from the
>> hardware).  These patches only make Steve's machine work by accident
>> -- they make us put the video device above 4GB, and we're just lucky
>> that the host bridge claims that region.
>
> Some bios looks enabling the non-stated range default to legacy chain.
> Some bios does not do that. only stated range count.
> So with pci=nocrs we still have some chance to get allocate high working.

The patch as proposed changes behavior for all systems, whether we're
using _CRS or not (in fact, it even changes the behavior for non-x86
systems).  The only case we know of where it fixes something is
Steve's system, where he already has to use "pci=nocrs" in order for
it to help.  My point is that it would be safer to leave things as
they are for everybody, and merely ask Steve to use "pci=nocrs
pci=alloc_high" or something similar.

>> One possibility is some sort of boot-time option to force a PCI device
>> to a specified address.  That would be useful for debugging as well as
>> for Steve's machine.
>
> yeah, how about
>
> pci=alloc_high
>
> and default to disabled ?

I was actually thinking of something more specific, e.g., a way to
place one device at an exact address.  I've implemented that a couple
times already for testing various things.  But maybe a more general
option like "pci=alloc_high" would make sense, too.

Linux has a long history of allocating bottom-up.  Windows has a long
history of allocating top-down.  You're proposing a third alternative,
allocating bottom-up starting at 4GB for 64-bit BARs.  If we change
this area, I would prefer something that follows Windows because I
think it will be closer to what's been tested by Windows.  Do you
think your alternative is better?
--
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/