linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 01/39] Kconfig: introduce HAS_IOPORT option and select it as necessary

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: <CAMuHMdVsjRUKYqS0nkKsT08A4a4ipuhn7AG+ZqcHBqZvVX02OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 May 2022 16:56:56 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "open list:IA64 (Itanium) PLATFORM" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SUPERH" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        "open list:SPARC + UltraSPARC (sparc/sparc64)" 
        <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:RISC-V ARCHITECTURE" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "open list:M68K ARCHITECTURE" <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        "open list:PARISC ARCHITECTURE" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        "open list:ALPHA PORT" <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 01/39] Kconfig: introduce HAS_IOPORT option and select it
 as necessary

Hi Maciej,

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 4:44 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...am.me.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022, David Laight wrote:
> > >  It was retrofitted in that x86 systems already existed for ~15 years when
> > > PCI came into picture.  Therefore the makers of the CPU ISA couldn't have
> > > envisaged the need for config access instructions like they did for memory
> > > and port access.
> >
> > Rev 2.0 of the PCI spec (1993) defines two mechanisms for config cycles.
> > #2 is probably the first one and maps all of PCI config space into
> > 4k of IO space (PCI bridges aren't supported).
>
>  This one is even more horrid than #1 in that it requires two separate
> preparatory I/O writes rather than just one, one to the Forward Register
> (at 0xcfa) to set the bus number, and another to the Configuration Space
> Enable Register (at 0xcf8) to set the function number, before you can
> issue a configuration read or write to a device.  So you need MP locking
> too.
>
>  NB only peer bridges aren't supported with this mechanism, normal PCI-PCI
> bridges are, via the Forward Register.
>
> > #1 requires a pair of accesses (and SMP locking).
> >
> > Neither is really horrid.
>
>  Both are.  First neither is MP-safe and second both are indirect in that
> you need to poke at some chipset registers before you can issue the actual
> read or write.
>
>  Sane access would require a single CPU instruction to read or write from
> the configuration space.  To access the conventional PCI configuration
> space in a direct linear manner you need 256 * 21 * 8 * 256 = 10.5MiB of
> address space.  Such amount of address space seems affordable even with
> 32-bit systems.

Won't have fit in the legacy 1 MiB space ("640 KiB...").

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds