linux-kernel - Re: ACPI regression? Was Re: Ethernet chip disappeared from lspci

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5586FAAB.3050303@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jun 2015 01:55:55 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Boszormenyi Zoltan <zboszor@...hu>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ACPI regression? Was Re: Ethernet chip disappeared from lspci

On 2015/6/22 1:25, Jiang Liu wrote:
[...]
>>>> -       Memory behind bridge: 80000000-801fffff
>>>> -       Prefetchable memory behind bridge: 0000000080200000-00000000803fffff
>>>> +       Memory behind bridge: ff000000-ff1fffff
>>>> +       Prefetchable memory behind bridge: 00000000ff200000-00000000ff3fffff
>>>>
>>>> Can't this cause a problem? E.g. programming the bridge with an address range
>>>> that the bridge doesn't actually support?
>>> This worked in v3.18.16, but not in v4.0.5 or v4.1.0-rc8.  You
>>> attached a v4.1.0-rc8 dmesg log earlier.  Would you mind collecting a
>>> v3.18.16 dmesg log, so we can compare them?
>>
>> I collected all 3 for you to compare them, compressed, attached.
>>
>> BTW, I browsed git log and found 2ea3d266bab3b497238113b20136f7c3f69ad9c0
>> as suspicious. I will try the 4.0/4.1 kernels with this one reverted.
>>
>>>
>>> These (from the v4.1.0-rc8 dmesg) look wrong, but I'll have to look at
>>> the code to see what might be going on:
>>>
>>>   acpi PNP0A08:00: host bridge window expanded to [mem
>>> 0x00000000-0xffffffff window]; [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff window]
>>> ignored
>>>   pci 0000:00:1c.1: can't claim BAR 15 [mem 0xfdf00000-0xfdffffff
>>> 64bit pref]: address conflict with PCI Bus 0000:00 [mem
>>> 0xf0000000-0xfed8ffff window]
>>>
>>> Bjorn
> Hi Bjorn and Boszormenyi,
> 	From the 3.18 kernel, we got a message:
> [    0.126248] acpi PNP0A08:00: host bridge window
> [0x400000000-0xfffffffff] (ignored, not CPU addressable)
> 	And from 4.1.-rc8, we got another message:
> [    0.127051] acpi PNP0A08:00: host bridge window expanded to [mem
> 0x00000000-0xffffffff window]; [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff window] ignored
> 
> That smells like a 32bit overflow or 64bit cut-off issue.
Hi Bjorn and Boszormenyi,
	With v3.18.6, it uses u64 to compare resource ranges. We changed to use
resource_size_t with recent changes, and resource_size_t
may be u32 or u64 depending on configuration. So resource range
[0x400000000-0xfffffffff] may have been cut-off as
[0x00000000-0xffffffff], thus cause the trouble.

Hi Boszormenyi,
	Could you please help to try following test patch?
against v4.1-rc8?
Thanks!
Gerry
-------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/resource.c b/drivers/acpi/resource.c
index 8244f013f210..d7b8c392c420 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/resource.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/resource.c
@@ -206,6 +206,11 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct resource_win *win,

        res->start = attr->minimum;
        res->end = attr->maximum;
+       if (res->start != attr->minimum || res->end != attr->maximum) {
+               pr_warn("resource window ([%#llx-%#llx] ignored, not CPU
addressable)\n",
+                       attr->minimum, attr->maximum);
+               return false;
+       }

        /*
         * For bridges that translate addresses across the bridge,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/