linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/24] PCI: Bridge window selection improvements

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: <d209c08a-56df-5aac-869d-7c6c548c0614@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 19:47:06 +0300 (EEST)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
cc: Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, 
    "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
    Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, 
    linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, 
    sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, 
    Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>, 
    Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>, 
    Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>, 
    "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
    Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, 
    Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, 
    Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
    Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@...el.com>, 
    linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] PCI: Bridge window selection improvements

On Wed, 27 Aug 2025, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 05:55:41PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > This series is based on top of the three resource fitting and
> > assignment algorithm fixes (v3).
> > 
> > PCI resource fitting and assignment code needs to find the bridge
> > window a resource belongs to in multiple places, yet, no common
> > function for that exists. Thus, each site has its own version of
> > the decision, each with their own corner cases, misbehaviors, and
> > some resulting in complex interfaces between internal functions.
> > ...
> 
> > I've tried to look out for any trouble that code under arch/ could
> > cause after the flags start to behave differently and therefore ended
> > up consolidating arch/ code to use pci_enable_resources(). My
> > impression is that strictly speaking only the MIPS code would break
> > similar to PCI core's copy of pci_enable_resources(), the others were
> > much more lax in checking so they'd likely keep working but
> > consolidation seemed still the best approach there as the enable checks
> > seemed diverging for no apparent reason.
> > ...
> 
> >   m68k/PCI: Use pci_enable_resources() in pcibios_enable_device()
> >   sparc/PCI: Remove pcibios_enable_device() as they do nothing extra
> >   MIPS: PCI: Use pci_enable_resources()
> > ...
> 
> >  arch/m68k/kernel/pcibios.c   |  39 +-
> >  arch/mips/pci/pci-legacy.c   |  38 +-
> >  arch/sparc/kernel/leon_pci.c |  27 --
> >  arch/sparc/kernel/pci.c      |  27 --
> >  arch/sparc/kernel/pcic.c     |  27 --
> > ...
> 
> I love the fact that you're doing so much cleanup.  Thanks for all the
> work in this!
>
> Obviously all this code is quite sensitive, so I put it on
> pci/resource to get more exposure in -next.

Thanks. I really appreciate the opportunity to have it in next for extra 
testing as my testing, while relatively extensive, still has its limits.

I'll need to do minor corrections into a few intermediate patches though 
to ensure bisectability, we really want to make this as bisectable as 
possible. In other words, I've found 2 relatively small issues in them 
which won't change the end result when the whole series is complete and 
fixed some small grammar errors in the changelogs.

I see you made some corrections so I'm not sure what's the best course of 
action here to update them. Should I just send v2 normally and you deal 
with your changes while replacing v1 with v2?

> If it turns out that we
> trip over things or just don't feel comfortable yet for v6.18, we can
> always defer this part until the next cycle.

I agree, and really please don't hesitate to postpone if it turns out 
necessary.

> I will also watch for acks from the m68k, mips, and sparc maintainers
> for those pieces.
> 
> Bjorn
> 

-- 
 i.