linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ACPI/PCI: Fix bus range comparation in pci_mcfg

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: <586AFE53.6000602@hisilicon.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2017 09:28:51 +0800
From:   Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
        Jayachandran C <jchandra@...adcom.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        jorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:     <liudongdong3@...wei.com>, <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ACPI/PCI: Fix bus range comparation in
 pci_mcfg_lookup

On 2016/12/22 17:07, Zhou Wang wrote:
> Multiple PCIe host bridges may exists in one PCIe segment. So bus range for each
> host bridge should be in the coverage of bus range of related PCIe segment.
> 
> This patch will support this kind of scenario:
> 
> MCFG:
> 	bus range: 0x00~0xff.
> 	segment: 0.
> DSDT:
> 	host bridge 1:
> 		bus range: 0x00~0x1f.
> 		segment: 0.
> 	host bridge 2:
> 		bus range: 0x20~0x4f.
> 		segment: 0.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
> index b5b376e..46a3e32 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c
> @@ -40,11 +40,10 @@ phys_addr_t pci_mcfg_lookup(u16 seg, struct resource *bus_res)
>  	struct mcfg_entry *e;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * We expect exact match, unless MCFG entry end bus covers more than
> -	 * specified by caller.
> +	 * We expect the range in bus_res in the coverage of MCFG bus range.
>  	 */
>  	list_for_each_entry(e, &pci_mcfg_list, list) {
> -		if (e->segment == seg && e->bus_start == bus_res->start &&
> +		if (e->segment == seg && e->bus_start <= bus_res->start &&
>  		    e->bus_end >= bus_res->end)
>  			return e->addr;
>  	}
> 

Any idea about this RFC patch?

Thanks,
Zhou

.