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
| ||
|
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 .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists