linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: Only enable IO window if supported

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, 18 Jun 2015 13:53:23 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Only enable IO window if supported

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:51:52PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:41:12AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I'd like res->flags to reflect the capabilities of the hardware, not
> >> > > whether the window is currently enabled.
> >> > >
> >> > Flag bits seem to be all taken. Could we use IORESOURCE_DISABLED for that
> >> > purpose, or could that cause conflicts elsewhere ?
> >>
> >> Yes, I think IORESOURCE_DISABLED would be appropriate for any I/O windows
> >> below a host bridge that doesn't support I/O space.
> >>
> > I integrated Lorenzo's patch and tried to get this working.
> >
> > Problem is that the use of a resource is widely checked with "!res->flags"
> > throughout the code. That would have to be changed to something like
> > "(!res->flags || (res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED))" whereever it is used.
> >
> > I tried going with "!res->flags" instead, but have not been able to get it
> > to work realiably; it is just very difficult to distinguish if "!res->flags"
> > means that the resource has not yet been assigned or if it means that it is not
> > supported.
> >
> > The correct approach, in my opinion, would be to go with IORESOURCE_DISABLED
> > and make the necessary changes whereever needed. Effectively this means to
> > replace the "!res->flags" check with something like pci_res_used() [ pick
> > your preferred name ] and define it as
> >
> > #define pci_res_used(res) ((res)->flags && !((res)->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED))
> 
> I think that makes sense.  Maybe "res_valid()"?  It's not really
> PCI-specific, and "used" is a little ambiguous.  So is "valid", I
> admit.
> 
res_valid() sounds good to me. It is also nice and short.

Guenter
--
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/