From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
To: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>
Cc: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PCI MMCONFIG: add validation against ACPI motherboard resources
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 19:41:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705011941.07438.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070430225916.GA39223@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
On Monday, April 30, 2007, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:14:37PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > -Validate that the area is reserved even if we read it from the
> > chipset directly and not from the MCFG table. This catches the case
> > where the BIOS didn't set the location properly in the chipset and
> > has mapped it over other things it shouldn't have. This might be
> > overly pessimistic - we might be able to instead verify that no
> > other reserved resources (like chipset registers) are inside this
> > memory range.
>
> I have a fundamental problem with that: you don't validate a higher
> reliability information against a lower one. The chipset registers
> are high reliability. Modulo unknown hardware erratas and bugs in the
> code (and accepting f0000000 is in practice a bug in the code, the
> docs are starting to catch up with it too), the chipset *will* decode
> mmconfig at the looked up address no matter what. On the other side,
> the ACPI data is bios generated, and that is well known to be horribly
> unreliable. Hell, if it was reliable we could just use the MFCG ACPI
> table without questions.
Now that I've read his patch closely I think you're right.
Robert, it looks like you'll trust acpi_table_parse if
pci_mmcfg_check_hostbridge returns a failure. I think it should be
treated with a higher priority. If pci_mmcfg_check_hostbridge returns a
failure, there's no way MCFG space can work, so we should disable it
unconditionally in that case (even if ACPI says "trust me, when have I
ever lied to you?").
I'm testing it now on my 965...
Thanks,
Jesse
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-02 2:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-30 2:14 [RFC PATCH] PCI MMCONFIG: add validation against ACPI motherboard resources Robert Hancock
2007-04-30 2:59 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-04-30 22:59 ` Olivier Galibert
2007-04-30 23:26 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-01 16:48 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-02 2:41 ` Jesse Barnes [this message]
2007-05-02 2:56 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-02 5:27 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-02 14:34 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-02 17:57 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-02 23:45 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-02 23:54 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-04 21:06 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-05 0:22 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-21 19:10 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-21 19:26 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-21 20:07 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-21 20:22 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 0:31 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-23 0:38 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 0:53 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-23 0:56 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 1:06 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-23 18:52 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 20:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-23 20:38 ` Alan Cox
2007-05-23 20:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-23 20:49 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 20:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-23 21:03 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 21:09 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-23 21:35 ` Alan Cox
2007-05-23 21:35 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-23 21:37 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 21:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-23 23:07 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-23 21:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-23 22:06 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 22:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-23 22:28 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 23:04 ` David Miller
2007-05-23 23:11 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 23:15 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-23 23:21 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 21:20 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 22:24 ` Olivier Galibert
2007-05-23 22:31 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-23 22:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-23 22:55 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-24 0:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-24 2:59 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-24 3:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-24 3:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-24 3:40 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-24 5:19 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-24 6:18 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-24 15:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-23 23:04 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-23 23:04 ` Robert Hancock
2007-05-23 23:06 ` Jesse Barnes
2007-05-24 0:02 ` Jesse Barnes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200705011941.07438.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--to=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=galibert@pobox.com \
--cc=hancockr@shaw.ca \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox