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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20161223004801.GA1096@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 18:48:01 -0600 From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> To: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com> Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rwright@....com Subject: Re: possible dmar_init_reserved_ranges() error Hi Ashok, On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:45:08PM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote: > Hi Bjorn > > None in the platform group say they know about this. So i'm fairly sure > we don't do that on Intel hardware (x86). I'm pretty sure there was once an x86 prototype for which PCI bus addresses were not identical to CPU physical addresses, but I have no idea whether it shipped that way. Even if such a system never shipped, the x86 arch code supports _TRA, and there's no reason to make the unnecessary assumption in this code that _TRA is always zero. If we didn't want to use pcibios_resource_to_bus() here for some reason, we should at least add a comment about why we think it's OK to use a CPU physical address as an IOVA. Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists