linux-kernel - Re: [Bugfix] x86/PCI: Fix regression caused by commit 4d6b4e69a245

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:	Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:27:17 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@...ernode.on.net>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugfix] x86/PCI: Fix regression caused by commit 4d6b4e69a245

On 2015/11/25 8:32, Arthur Marsh wrote:
> Keith Busch wrote on 25/11/15 09:34:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:19:34PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Quite frankly, I'm more likely to revert the offending commit at this
>>> point as that's not the only regression reported against it and the
>>> fix only helps in one case (out of three known to me).
>>
>> Using 4.4-rc1 and can confirm the patch fixes my regression report. The
>> revert also fixes it, so either way is good for me!
>>
> 
> To re-cap, all was fine for me until:
> 
> 4d6b4e69a245e9df4b84dba387596086cb66887d is the first bad commit
> commit 4d6b4e69a245e9df4b84dba387596086cb66887d
> Author: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> Date:   Wed Oct 14 14:29:41 2015 +0800
> 
>      x86/PCI/ACPI: Use common interface to support PCI host bridge
> 
>      Use common interface to simplify ACPI PCI host bridge implementation.
> 
>      Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
>      Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>      Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
>      Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> :040000 040000 a3447eea376b5a3e6f57deb35cf064c5481b45e3
> f64d8e49fd87b776933dfa3dfefcb33509004d3f M      arch
> 
> From the boot-up I get the message as shown in the images at:
> http://www.users.on.net/~arthur.marsh/20151107601.jpg and
> http://www.users.on.net/~arthur.marsh/20151107602.jpg
> 
> The boot-up suggests trying rebooting with pci=alloc but that didn't help.
> 
> The errors shown include
> "BAR 0: trying firmware assignment [io  size 0x0020]"
> "BAR 0: [io  size 0x0020] conflicts with PCI Bus #00 [io  0x0000-0xffff]
> "BAR 0: failed to assign [io  size 0x0020]
> 
> Applying the following patch on top of the patch above from 14 October
> 2015 worked for me:
> 
> 
> From 02818ba34bfa76d93f2a29c85660da0323b0b457 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Liu Jiang <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:36:48 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH]
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Liu Jiang <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c b/arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c
> index 7bcf06a7cd12..022d83158cdb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/bus_numa.c
> @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ void x86_pci_root_bus_resources(int bus, struct
> list_head *resources)
>          pci_add_resource(resources, &info->busn);
> 
>      list_for_each_entry(root_res, &info->resources, list) {
> +        pci_add_resource(resources, &root_res->res);
> +#if 0
>          struct resource *res;
>          struct resource *root;
> 
> @@ -61,6 +63,7 @@ void x86_pci_root_bus_resources(int bus, struct
> list_head *resources)
>          else
>              root = &iomem_resource;
>          insert_resource(root, res);
> +#endif
>      }
>      return;
> 
> ###
> 
> The patch postd by Jian Liu on 16 November 2015 "[Bugfix] x86/PCI: Fix
> regression caused by commit 4d6b4e69a245" had *not* been seen or tested
> by me before being posted to the linux-acpi list and when I did test it
> (after removing the patch above from 9 November 2015), things broke:
> http://www.users.on.net/~arthur.marsh/20151116611.jpg
> 
> So if "commit 4d6b4e69a245e9df4b84dba387596086cb66887d
> x86/PCI/ACPI: Use common interface to support PCI host bridge" stays,
> then the patch "16 November 2015 [Bugfix] x86/PCI: Fix regression caused
> by commit 4d6b4e69a245" would need to go and the patch above from 9
> November 2015 would need to be accepted into the mainline for my machine
> to boot from the mainline code.
Hi Arthur,
	Thanks for reminder again!
It's a little strange, the formal patch "[Bugfix] x86/PCI: Fix
regression caused by commit 4d6b4e69a245" is based on the debug patch
I sent to you at 9 November 2015.
	Could you please help to try the attached patch again?
Thanks,
Gerry

> 
> Arthur.

View attachment "0001-x86-PCI-Fix-regression-caused-by-commit-4d6b4e69a245.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2534 bytes)