linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] PCI: QDF2432 32 bit config space accessors

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]

Message-ID: <fdabd92b-1e5f-e66a-a8ec-0f763b74de99@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:06:28 -0400
From:   Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     cov@...eaurora.org, Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
        will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, rafael@...nel.org,
        Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com, arnd@...db.de, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
        jchandra@...adcom.com, dhdang@....com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
        robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com, mw@...ihalf.com,
        Liviu.Dudau@....com, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
        wangyijing@...wei.com, msalter@...hat.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, jcm@...hat.com,
        andrea.gallo@...aro.org, jeremy.linton@....com,
        liudongdong3@...wei.com, gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com,
        jhugo@...eaurora.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] PCI: QDF2432 32 bit config space accessors

On 11/3/2016 12:58 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> > This is the crucial point I have failed to communicate clearly: the
>> > PNP0C02 resource is *always* required, even if the MCFG is correct.
>> > 
> Interesting...
> 
> It looks like there is a lot of lessons learnt here from history.
> 
> I think this requirement is only true if your system DDR space and PCIe
> space overlaps in the memory map. I understand that Intel systems allow
> sharing of these two memory ranges. An OS could potentially reclaim this
> address range.
> 
> If there is no overlap and PCI is not enabled, there can't be any SW entity
> to reclaim this space. 
> 
> Did I miss something?
> 

For protection, it makes sense to reserve this range. I'm trying to understand
who would claim this range.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.