linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Use resource_set

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: <a046f6bb-0b6e-a431-eaa5-ecd279459f86@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:53:51 +0300 (EEST)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, 
    Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
    Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, 
    x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 
    Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Use resource_set_{range,size}() helpers

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > Convert open coded resource size calculations to use
> > resource_set_{range,size}() helpers.
> > 
> > While at it, use SZ_* for size parameter which makes the intent of code
> > more obvious.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +	resource_set_range(res, base, 1ULL << (segn_busn_bits + 20));
> 
> Then probably
> 
> 	resource_set_range(res, base, BIT_ULL(segn_busn_bits) * SZ_1M);
> 
> to follow the same "While at it"?

I'll change that now since you brought it up. It did cross my mind to 
convert that to * SZ_1M but it seemed to go farther than I wanted with a 
simple conversion patch.

I've never liked the abuse of BIT*() for size related shifts though, I 
recall I saw somewhere a helper that was better named for size related 
operations but I just cannot recall its name and seem to not find that 
anymore :-(. But until I come across it once again, I guess I'll have to 
settle to BIT*().

> > +			resource_set_range(res, 0xC0000, SZ_128K);
> >  			res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW |
> >  				     IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED;
> 
> I'm wondering why not DEFINE_RES_MEM() in such cases?

I guess you meant DEFINE_RES() as that seems to allow giving custom flags.
However, DEFINE_RES*() will overwrite ->name which seems something that 
ought to not be done here.

I found one other case from the same file though which is truly defines
a resource from scratch.

-- 
 i.