linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cxl/acpi: Verify CHBS consistency

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:   Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:38:29 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, alison.schofield@...el.com,
        bwidawsk@...nel.org, ira.weiny@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
        a.manzanares@...sung.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl/acpi: Verify CHBS consistency

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, Dan Williams wrote:

>For cxl_port objects this happens "for free" as a side effect of the:
>
>        crb = devm_cxl_iomap_block(dev, port->component_reg_phys,
>                                   CXL_COMPONENT_REG_BLOCK_SIZE);
>
>...call in devm_cxl_setup_hdm(), where it tries to exclusively claim the
>component register block for that cxl_port driver instance.

Fair enough, I had noticed this.

>
>I.e. if the CHBS provides overlapping / duplicated ranges the failure is
>localized to the cxl_port_probe() event for that port, and can be
>debugged further by disabling one of the conflicts.

Ok. Although imo it does make sense for failing directly in the cxl_acpi
driver at an early stage instead of bogusly passing it down the hierarchy.

So is a v2 still worth it without this check?

Thanks,
Davidlohr