Message-ID: <563B588C.1010507@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:24:28 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>
Cc:	Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Boszormenyi Zoltan <zboszor@...hu>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, "x86 @ kernel . org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bugfix v4] PCI, ACPI: Fix regressions caused by resource_size_t
 overflow with 32-bit kernel

On 2015/11/5 20:53, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 02.11.2015 16:27, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 08.07.2015 09:26, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>> Zoltan Boszormenyi reported this regression:
>>>    "There's a Realtek RTL8111/8168/8411 (PCI ID 10ec:8168, Subsystem ID
>>>     1565:230e) network chip on the mainboard. After the r8169 driver
>>> loaded
>>>     the IRQs in the machine went berserk. Keyboard keypressed arrived
>>> with
>>>     considerable latency and duplicated, so no real work was possible.
>>>     The machine responded to the power button but didn't actually power
>>>     down. It just stuck at the powering down message. I had to press the
>>>     power button for 4 seconds to power it down.
>>>
>>>     The computer is a POS machine with a big battery inside. Because
>>> of this,
>>>     either ACPI or the Realtek chip kept the bad state and after
>>> rebooting,
>>>     the network chip didn't even show up in lspci. Not even the PXE ROM
>>>     announced itself during boot. I had to disconnect the battery to
>>> beat
>>>     some sense back to the computer.
>>>
>>>     The regression happens with 4.0.5, 4.1.0-rc8 and 4.1.0-final.
>>> 3.18.16 was
>>>     good."
>>>
>>> The regression is caused by commit 593669c2ac0f ("x86/PCI/ACPI: Use
>>> common
>>> ACPI resource interfaces to simplify implementation"). Since commit
>>> 593669c2ac0f, x86 PCI ACPI host bridge driver validates ACPI
>>> resources by
>>> first converting an ACPI resource to a 'struct resource' structure and
>>> then applying checks against the converted resource structure. The
>>> 'start'
>>> and 'end' fields in 'struct resource' are defined to be type of
>>> resource_size_t, which may be 32 bits or 64 bits depending on
>>> CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT.
>>>
>>> This may cause incorrect resource validation results with 32-bit kernels
>>> because 64-bit ACPI resource descriptors may get truncated when
>>> converting
>>> to 32-bit 'start' and 'end' fields in 'struct resource'. It eventually
>>> affects PCI resource allocation subsystem and makes some PCI devices and
>>> the system behave abnormally due to incorrect resource assignment.
>>>
>>> So enhance the ACPI resource parsing interfaces to ignore ACPI resource
>>> descriptors with address/offset above 4G when running in 32-bit mode.
>>>
>>> With the fix applied, the behavior of the machine was restored to how
>>> 3.18.16 worked, i.e. the memory range that is over 4GB is ignored again,
>>> and lspci -vvxxx shows that everything is at the same memory window as
>>> they were with 3.18.16.
>>>
>>> Reported-and-Tested-by: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zboszor@...hu>
>>> Fixes: 593669c2ac0f ("x86/PCI/ACPI: Use common ACPI resource
>>> interfaces to simplify implementation")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 4.0
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/acpi/resource.c |   24 +++++++++++++++---------
>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/resource.c b/drivers/acpi/resource.c
>>> index 10561ce16ed1..e8d281739cbc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/resource.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/resource.c
>>> @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct resource_win
>>> *win,
>>>       u8 iodec = attr->granularity == 0xfff ? ACPI_DECODE_10 :
>>> ACPI_DECODE_16;
>>>       bool wp = addr->info.mem.write_protect;
>>>       u64 len = attr->address_length;
>>> +    u64 start, end, offset = 0;
>>>       struct resource *res = &win->res;
>>>
>>>       /*
>>> @@ -205,9 +206,6 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct resource_win
>>> *win,
>>>           pr_debug("ACPI: Invalid address space min_addr_fix %d,
>>> max_addr_fix %d, len %llx\n",
>>>                addr->min_address_fixed, addr->max_address_fixed, len);
>>>
>>> -    res->start = attr->minimum;
>>> -    res->end = attr->maximum;
>>> -
>>>       /*
>>>        * For bridges that translate addresses across the bridge,
>>>        * translation_offset is the offset that must be added to the
>>> @@ -215,12 +213,22 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct
>>> resource_win *win,
>>>        * primary side. Non-bridge devices must list 0 for all Address
>>>        * Translation offset bits.
>>>        */
>>> -    if (addr->producer_consumer == ACPI_PRODUCER) {
>>> -        res->start += attr->translation_offset;
>>> -        res->end += attr->translation_offset;
>>> -    } else if (attr->translation_offset) {
>>> +    if (addr->producer_consumer == ACPI_PRODUCER)
>>> +        offset = attr->translation_offset;
>>> +    else if (attr->translation_offset)
>>>           pr_debug("ACPI: translation_offset(%lld) is invalid for
>>> non-bridge device.\n",
>>>                attr->translation_offset);
>>> +    start = attr->minimum + offset;
>>> +    end = attr->maximum + offset;
>>
>> I still see the issue for this area, I mean ACPI_IO_RANGE. You are
>> adding translation offset to attr->minimum, build resource structure
>> which is then passed to acpi_dev_ioresource_flags and compared against
>> 0x10003. It causes some IO ranges to be ignored.
>>
> 
> Kindly reminder, any comments?
> 
> Tomasz
Hi Tomasz,
	Thanks for reporting this issue! Could you please help to
test the attached patch?
Thanks,
Gerry


View attachment "0001-ACPI-Fix-an-error-in-IO-port-range-validation.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1740 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists