| 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: <49405979-97c2-17ab-7deb-77c8d31092bb@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:06:23 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@...us.ca>,
Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge windows
on newer systems
Hi Bjorn,
Thank you for the review.
On 10/14/21 5:49 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 01:03:57PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system RAM
>> in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
>> commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address
>> space").
>>
>> To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
>> addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for PCI
>> mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
>
> This is a problem not because Windows ignores E820, but because the
> spec does not support excluding based on E820. We should cite the
> spec and include the relevant text here.
Ok, for v5 I will replace this with your info on the specs from this email:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211008110149.GA1313872@bhelgaas/T/#t
>
>> Recently (2020) some systems have shown-up with E820 reservations which
>> cover the entire _CRS returned PCI bridge memory window, causing all
>> attempts to assign memory to PCI BARs which have not been setup by the
>> BIOS to fail. For example here are the relevant dmesg bits from a
>> Lenovo IdeaPad 3 15IIL 81WE:
>>
>> [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
>> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
>>
>> Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
>> allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
>> Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
>> reservations like Windows does for any systems from now on.
>>
>> Old systems are defined here as BIOS year < 2018, this was chosen to
>> make sure that pci_use_e820 will not be set on the currently affected
>> systems, while at the same time also taking into account that the
>> systems for which the E820 checking was originally added may have
>> received BIOS updates for quite a while (esp. CVE related ones),
>> giving them a more recent BIOS year then 2010.
>>
>> Also add pci=no_e820 and pci=use_e820 options to allow overriding
>> the BIOS year heuristic.
>>
>> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206459
>> BugLink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868899
>> BugLink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871793
>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1878279
>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1931715
>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1932069
>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1921649
>> Cc: Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@...us.ca>
>> Cc: Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Commit msg tweaks (drop dmesg timestamps, typo fix)
>> - Use "defined(CONFIG_...)" instead of "defined CONFIG_..."
>> - Add Mika's Reviewed-by
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Replace the per model DMI quirk approach with disabling E820 reservations
>> checking for all systems with a BIOS year >= 2018
>> - Add documentation for the new kernel-parameters to
>> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> ---
>> Other patches trying to address the same issue:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210624095324.34906-1-hui.wang@canonical.com
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200617164734.84845-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com
>> V1 patch:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211005150956.303707-1-hdegoede@redhat.com
>> ---
>> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 6 ++++
>> arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h | 10 +++++++
>> arch/x86/kernel/resource.c | 4 +++
>> arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/x86/pci/common.c | 6 ++++
>> 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> index 43dc35fe5bc0..969cde5d74c8 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> @@ -3949,6 +3949,12 @@
>> please report a bug.
>> nocrs [X86] Ignore PCI host bridge windows from ACPI.
>> If you need to use this, please report a bug.
>> + use_e820 [X86] Honor E820 reservations when allocating
>> + PCI host bridge memory. If you need to use this,
>> + please report a bug.
>> + no_e820 [X86] ignore E820 reservations when allocating
>> + PCI host bridge memory. If you need to use this,
>> + please report a bug.
>
> Inconsistent capitalization.
>
> Should use same terminology as nocrs, i.e., "PCI host bridge windows",
> not "PCI host bridge memory".
>
> I don't think "Honor E820 reservations" is the right way to describe
> this. It's not a question of upholding something we *should* be
> doing. That would be a matter of working around a BIOS defect.
> Maybe something like this:
>
> Use E820 reservations to exclude parts of PCI host bridge windows.
> This is a workaround for BIOS defects in host bridge _CRS methods.
> If you need to use this, please report a bug to
> linux-pci@...r.kernel.org so we can apply it automatically.
Ok, that works for me, I'll use the above text for v5.
> Not 100% sure we need "no_e820" since that should be the default. But
> I guess it's conceivable some system might need it. I just hate
> adding additional things for people to try and then spread the
> resulting misinformation as a "fix" on random forums.
no_e820 will be the default for BIOS-year >= 2018, but on older
systems my patch preserves the old behavior of use_e820.
So to allow people to easily test if no_e820 behavior helps on
older systems we need it.
I fully agree with your worry about 'misinformation as a "fix"
on random forums', but I don't have a solution for that.
I guess we could completely omit both cmdline options, but
that will make debugging issues a lot header. IMHO it is
worthwhile to have this options to allow users to quickly
test things when we ask them to do so.
>
>> routeirq Do IRQ routing for all PCI devices.
>> This is normally done in pci_enable_device(),
>> so this option is a temporary workaround
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> index 490411dba438..0bb4e7dd0ffc 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ do { \
>> #define PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS 0x100000
>> #define PCI_NOASSIGN_BARS 0x200000
>> #define PCI_BIG_ROOT_WINDOW 0x400000
>> +#define PCI_USE_E820 0x800000
>> +#define PCI_NO_E820 0x1000000
>>
>> extern unsigned int pci_probe;
>> extern unsigned long pirq_table_addr;
>> @@ -64,6 +66,8 @@ void pcibios_scan_specific_bus(int busn);
>>
>> /* pci-irq.c */
>>
>> +struct pci_dev;
>> +
>> struct irq_info {
>> u8 bus, devfn; /* Bus, device and function */
>> struct {
>> @@ -232,3 +236,9 @@ static inline void mmio_config_writel(void __iomem *pos, u32 val)
>> # define x86_default_pci_init_irq NULL
>> # define x86_default_pci_fixup_irqs NULL
>> #endif
>> +
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PCI) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI)
>> +extern bool pci_use_e820;
>> +#else
>> +#define pci_use_e820 false
>> +#endif
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
>> index 9b9fb7882c20..e8dc9bc327bd 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> #include <linux/ioport.h>
>> #include <asm/e820/api.h>
>> +#include <asm/pci_x86.h>
>>
>> static void resource_clip(struct resource *res, resource_size_t start,
>> resource_size_t end)
>> @@ -28,6 +29,9 @@ static void remove_e820_regions(struct resource *avail)
>> int i;
>> struct e820_entry *entry;
>>
>> + if (!pci_use_e820)
>> + return;
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i < e820_table->nr_entries; i++) {
>> entry = &e820_table->entries[i];
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
>> index 948656069cdd..6c2febe84b6f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
>> @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ struct pci_root_info {
>>
>> static bool pci_use_crs = true;
>> static bool pci_ignore_seg = false;
>> +/* Consumed in arch/x86/kernel/resource.c */
>> +bool pci_use_e820 = false;
>>
>> static int __init set_use_crs(const struct dmi_system_id *id)
>> {
>> @@ -160,6 +162,33 @@ void __init pci_acpi_crs_quirks(void)
>> "if necessary, use \"pci=%s\" and report a bug\n",
>> pci_use_crs ? "Using" : "Ignoring",
>> pci_use_crs ? "nocrs" : "use_crs");
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system
>> + * RAM in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
>> + * commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address space").
>> + * To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
>> + * addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for
>> + * PCI mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
>> + * In 2020 some systems have shown-up with E820 reservations which cover the
>> + * entire _CRS returned PCI bridge memory window, causing all attempts to
>> + * assign memory to PCI BARs to fail if Linux honors the E820 reservations.
>> + *
>> + * Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
>> + * allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
>> + * Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
>> + * reservations like Windows does for any systems from now on.
>
> Wrap this to fit in 80 columns like the rest of the file. More
> important for the file to be internally consistent than any new
> guidelines.
Already fixed in v4 (the only change in v4). I'll also drop the "Windows..."
sentence which you did not like in the commit msg for v5.
>
>> + */
>> + if (year >= 0 && year < 2018)
>> + pci_use_e820 = true;
>> +
>> + if (pci_probe & PCI_NO_E820)
>> + pci_use_e820 = false;
>> + else if (pci_probe & PCI_USE_E820)
>> + pci_use_e820 = true;
>> +
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: %s E820 reservations for host bridge windows\n",
>> + pci_use_e820 ? "Honoring" : "Ignoring");
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MMCONFIG
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> index 3507f456fcd0..091ec7e94fcb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> @@ -595,6 +595,12 @@ char *__init pcibios_setup(char *str)
>> } else if (!strcmp(str, "nocrs")) {
>> pci_probe |= PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS;
>> return NULL;
>> + } else if (!strcmp(str, "use_e820")) {
>> + pci_probe |= PCI_USE_E820;
>> + return NULL;
>> + } else if (!strcmp(str, "no_e820")) {
>> + pci_probe |= PCI_NO_E820;
>> + return NULL;
>
> Why does pci_probe have to be involved here? Couldn't we just set
> pci_use_e820 directly?
This code runs early on, before the heuristics which set
pci_use_e820 gets set based on the BIOS year, so this is
done indirectly so that the code doing the heuristics
(and checking DMI quirks/exceptions if we add any)
can set a default and then these flags are checked to
override the default.
> Same argument applies to PCI_USE__CRS and PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS of course,
> and I probably added those, so maybe there was a reason, or maybe I
> just screwed up that too.
What I wrote above, also applies to the use_crs handling, which is
handled the same for the same reason :)
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists