linux-kernel - Re: [5.17 regression] "x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge windows on newer systems" breaks suspend/resume

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YgpcYHZ1fxnBiUjV@lahna>
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:42:56 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
        Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@...us.ca>,
        Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [5.17 regression] "x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge
 windows on newer systems" breaks suspend/resume

Hi Hans,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:42:29PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2/10/22 07:39, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > Hi Hans,
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 05:08:13PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> As mentioned in my email from 10 seconds ago I think a better simpler
> >> fix would be to just do:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
> >> index 9b9fb7882c20..18656f823764 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
> >> @@ -28,6 +28,10 @@ static void remove_e820_regions(struct resource *avail)
> >>  	int i;
> >>  	struct e820_entry *entry;
> >>  
> >> +	/* Only remove E820 reservations on classic BIOS boot */
> >> +	if (efi_enabled(EFI_MEMMAP))
> >> +		return;
> >> +
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < e820_table->nr_entries; i++) {
> >>  		entry = &e820_table->entries[i];
> >>  
> >>
> >> I'm curious what you think of that?
> > 
> > I'm not an expert in this e820 stuff but this one looks really simple
> > and makes sense to me. So definitely should go with it assuming there
> > are no objections from the x86 maintainers.
> 
> Unfortunately with this suspend/resume is still broken on the ThinkPad
> X1 carbon gen 2 of the reporter reporting the regression. The reporter
> has been kind enough to also test in EFI mode (at my request) and then
> the problem is back again with this patch. So just differentiating
> between EFI / non EFI mode is not an option.

Thanks for the update! Too bad that it did not solve the regression, though :(

> FYI, here is what I believe is the root-cause of the issue on the ThinkPad X1 carbon gen 2:
> 
> The E820 reservations table has the following in both BIOS and EFI boot modes:
> 
> [    0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000dceff000-0x00000000dfa0ffff] reserved
> 
> Which has a small overlap with:
> 
> [    0.884684] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0xdfa00000-0xfebfffff window]
> 
> This leads to the following difference in assignments of PCI resources when honoring E820 reservations
> 
> [    0.966573] pci 0000:00:1c.0: BAR 14: assigned [mem 0xdfb00000-0xdfcfffff]
> [    0.966698] pci_bus 0000:02: resource 1 [mem 0xdfb00000-0xdfcfffff]
> 
> vs the following when ignoring E820 reservations:
> 
> [    0.966850] pci 0000:00:1c.0: BAR 14: assigned [mem 0xdfa00000-0xdfbfffff]
> [    0.966973] pci_bus 0000:02: resource 1 [mem 0xdfa00000-0xdfbfffff]
> 
> And the overlap of 0xdfa00000-0xdfa0ffff from the e820 reservations seems to be what is causing the suspend/resume issue.

Any idea what is using that range?

> ###
> 
> As already somewhat discussed, I'll go and prepare this solution instead:
> 
> 1. Add E820_TYPE_MMIO to enum e820_type and modify the 2 places which check for
>    type == reserved to treat this as reserved too, so as to not have any
>    functional changes there
> 
> 2. Modify the code building e820 tables from the EFI memmap to use
>    E820_TYPE_MMIO for MMIO EFI memmap entries.
> 
> 3. Modify arch/x86/kernel/resource.c: remove_e820_regions() to skip
>    e820 table entries with a type of E820_TYPE_MMIO,
>    this would actually be a functional change and should fix the
>    issues we are trying to fix.

Given the above regression, I can't think of a better way to solve this.