linux-kernel - Re: Boot failure on gru-scarlet-inx with 5.9-rc2

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, 2 Sep 2020 23:47:56 -0400
From:   Samuel Dionne-Riel <samuel@...nne-riel.com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Boot failure on gru-scarlet-inx with 5.9-rc2

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:01:19 +0100
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:33:56PM -0400, Samuel Dionne-Riel wrote:
> 
> Please print a pointer as a pointer and print both bus and
> bus->parent.

Hopefully pointer as a pointer is %px. Not sure what else, if that's
wrong please tell.

---
@@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_valid_device(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip,
         * do not read more than one device on the bus directly attached
         * to RC's downstream side.
         */
+       printk("[!!] // bus (%px) bus->parent (%px)\n", bus, bus->parent);
+       printk("[!!] bus->primary (%d) == rockchip->root_bus_nr (%d) && dev (%d) > 0\n", bus->primary, rockchip->root_bus_nr, dev);
        if (bus->primary == rockchip->root_bus_nr && dev > 0)
                return 0;
 
--

Again, two values, verified with a bit of set and `sort -u`.

[    1.691266] [!!] // bus (ffff0000ef9ab800) bus->parent (0000000000000000)
[    1.691271] [!!] bus->primary (0) == rockchip->root_bus_nr (0) && dev (0) > 0

and

[    1.697156] [!!] // bus (ffff0000ef9ac000) bus->parent (ffff0000ef9ab800)
[    1.697160] [!!] bus->primary (0) == rockchip->root_bus_nr (0) && dev (0) > 0

First instance of each shown here. Last time I don't think it was.

> > +       printk("[!!] bus->primary (%d) == rockchip->root_bus_nr
> > (%d) && dev (%d) > 0\n", bus->primary, rockchip->root_bus_nr, dev);
> > if (bus->primary == rockchip->root_bus_nr && dev > 0) return 0;
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > I get two kind of results
> > 
> > [    1.692913] [!!] // bus->parent (0)
> > [    1.692917] [!!] bus->primary (0) == rockchip->root_bus_nr (0)
> > && dev (0) > 0
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > [    1.693055] [!!] // bus->parent (-256794624)
> > [    1.693058] [!!] bus->primary (0) == rockchip->root_bus_nr (0)
> > && dev (0) > 0 
> 
> Looks like this is the condition that pci_is_root_bus(bus->parent) is
> not hitting.
> 



> You are accessing a resource IORESOURCE_MEM that has nothing to do
> with bus numbers.
> 
> s/IORESOURCE_MEM/IORESOURCE_BUS
> 
> should be better ;-)

At least correct, rather than luckily working.


Thanks, as always, anything I missed, or need more precisions, do ask.

-- 
Samuel Dionne-Riel