From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757330AbcEDKXs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 May 2016 06:23:48 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:36110 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751383AbcEDKXq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 May 2016 06:23:46 -0400
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 12:23:40 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>,
        Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/sysfb_efi: Fix valid BAR address range check
Message-ID: <20160504102340.GA4470@gmail.com>
References: <1462303781-8686-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <1462303781-8686-3-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160504063524.GB12846@gmail.com>
 <20160504092510.GD2839@codeblueprint.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160504092510.GD2839@codeblueprint.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 May, at 08:35:24AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
> > > 
> > > We can't just break out when meet start is equal to zero,
> > 
> > Hm, wot?
> 
> The existing code treats address 0x0 as invalid for a PCI BAR range
> start address, but 0x0 is actually possible and legitimate, so we
> shouldn't be breaking out of the loop.

Yeah, so I just don't understand the 'when meet start is equal to zero' part - 
what does it mean?

Thanks,

	Ingo