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:	Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:44:16 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <>
Cc:	ACPI Devel Maling List <>,
	Len Brown <>,
	LKML <>,
	Peter Wu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI / ACPI: Rework ACPI device nodes lookup for the PCI bus type

On Thursday, January 03, 2013 04:00:55 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 03, 2013 02:44:32 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, January 03, 2013 08:16:26 AM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
> >> >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As the kernel Bugzilla report #42696 indicates, it generally is not
> >> >> > sufficient to use _ADR to get an ACPI device node corresponding to
> >> >> > the given PCI device, because there may be multiple objects with
> >> >> > matching _ADR in the ACPI namespace (this probably is against the
> >> >> > spec, but it evidently happens in practice).
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't see anything in sec 6.1.1 (_ADR) that precludes having
> >> >> multiple objects that contain the same _ADR. Do you have any other
> >> >> pointers?
> >> >
> >> > Section 6.1 implicitly means that.  It says that for PCI devices _ADR
> >> > must be present to identify which device is represented by the given
> >> > ACPI node.  Next, Section 6.1.1 says that the parent bus should be inferred
> >> > from the location of the _ADR object's device package in the ACPI namespace,
> >> > so clearly, if that's under the PCI root bridge ACPI node, the _ADR
> >> > corresponds to a PCI device's bus address.
> >>
> >> I agree that for namespace Devices below a PCI host bridge, the _ADR
> >> value and its position in the hierarchy is required to be sufficient
> >> to identify a PCI device and function (or the set of all functions on
> >> a device #).
> >>
> >> > Then, Table 6-139 specifies the format of _ADR for PCI devices as being
> >> > euqivalent to devfn, which means that if two nodes with the same _ADR are
> >> > present in one scope (under one parent), then it is impossible to distinguish
> >> > between them and that's against Section 6.1.
> >>
> >> This is the bit I don't understand.  Where's the requirement that we
> >> be able to distinguish between two namespace nodes with the same _ADR?
> >
> > According to the spec we can't (if they are under the same parent) and that's
> > the whole problem.
> It's only a problem if you make the assumptions Linux does.  I can
> imagine a system with different assumptions.  For example, an OS could
> start with PCI device X and ask "please run any _PS0 method that
> matches X."  In that case, you don't care how many objects have an
> _ADR that matches X; you merely find *any* matching object that
> contains _PS0.

Well, except when there are multiple matching objects having _PS0.
Which actually happens in the failing case in bug #42696.

Our assumptions work pretty well on other systems and I don't quite see the
reason to change them entirely.

Moreover, Section 19.5.30 of the spec says that "Device object [...] represents
either a bus or a device or any other similar hardware".  That implies that if
there are two objects with the same _ADR matching the same single devfn of a
PCI device, that will mean that there are _two_ different PCI devices under the
same parent that have the same devfn.  In that case PCI config space accesses
wouldn't work for those devices, though.

> >> Linux assumes we can start from a PCI device and identify a single
> >> related ACPI namespace node, e.g., in acpi_pci_find_device().  But all
> >> I see in the spec is a requirement that we can start from an ACPI
> >> namespace node and find a PCI device.  So I'm not sure
> >> acpi_pci_find_device() is based on a valid assumption.
> >
> > I think it is.
> >
> > Suppose that we have two namespace nodes with the same _ADR under one parent
> > (PCI bridge ACPI node) and they both contain things like _PS0 and _PS3.  Which
> > one of these are we supposed to use for the power management of the
> > corresponding PCI device?  Because they both would point to the same device,
> > right?
> That's a good question.  It's more complicated if two objects supply
> the same method.

Well it is and they do.

> >> Let's say we want to provide _SUN and _UID.  _SUN is a slot number
> >> that may apply to several PCI functions, while _UID probably refers to
> >> a single PCI function.  Is it legal to provide two namespace objects,
> >> one with _ADR 0x0003ffff and _SUN, and another with _ADR 0x00030000
> >> and _UID?
> >
> > I don't think it is valid to do that.
> Is there something in the spec that says you can't?  I can imagine a
> BIOS writer doing that, and I don't know how I could convince him that
> it's illegal.

Well, OK.

> It would be really interesting to try some of these scenarios on
> Windows with qemu.

That's interesting theoretically, but doesn't directly relate to the case at
hand.  The case at hand is that for a given PCI device we want to find the ACPI
namespace node that can be used for things like power management, if one
exists.  While it may be valid to specify _ADR of type 0x0003ffff for some
namespace nodes, I don't really think it is valid to specify two objects with
the same _ADR matching a specific devfn that both provide the same methods
(like _PSx or _CRS).

And the question we need to answer is not "I have a namespace node, so which
device it represents?", but "I have a device, so which namespace node provides
methods I'm supposed to use for it?"

So I think we make the right assumptions, but there are broken BIOSes that
don't follow them and I'm trying to find out how to handle them without
blacklisting etc.

Questioning the validity of everything we're doing doesn't really help, mind


I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists