linux-kernel - Re: SNB PCI root information

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: <CAErSpo40SDii6PTNisAnsn6SoB7SzPUGztWAg9vaZZv+ByQsPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:36:20 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lenb@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SNB PCI root information

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> If ACPI provides a perfectly usable generic way to describe this
>>> topology and the vendor BIOS doesn't bother to use it, I'm not very
>>> interested in trying to compensate for that BIOS deficiency by adding
>>> a bunch of non-portable CPU-specific gunk to Linux.
>>
>> The problem is that all machines get this wrong.  I've tested varies
>> models from Dell and HP and none of them have the _PXM entry and the
>> local_cpus fields are wrong.  If there is a reasonably sane way to
>> compensate for broken BIOSes it should be considered.  We all know how
>> good BIOS authors are...
>
> please check attached one. and  you may append "pci=busnum_node=00:00,80:01"
> to change node for root bus.
> assume you have two root bus: 00, 80

I'm not opposed to something like this, if people think it's useful.

This patch sets the node quite early, before we even look at the _PXM
information in pci_acpi_scan_root().  That means if the BIOS does
supply a _PXM method and the user gives this argument, the
user-supplied info is silently overwritten.  To me it would make more
sense to handle an option like this *after* we look for _PXM info.
That way it could be used to compensate for both missing and incorrect
_PXM info.
--
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/