From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>,
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, 22 May 2007 19:06:00 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46539378.6000508@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705221738.09571.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
>> Eww. I don't see where we disable the decode at all while we probe the
>> BARs on the device. That seems like a bad thing, especially with the way
>> we probe 64-bit BARs (do the low 32 bits first and then the high 32
>> bits). This means the base address effectively gets set to 0xfffffff0
>> momentarily, which might cause some issues.
>
> I'm a bit shocked that things work as well as they do without the
> disabling...
>
>> I'd try adding some code inside pci_setup_device (drivers/pci/probe.c)
>> to disable PCI_COMMAND_IO and PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY on the device when
>> probing devices with the standard header type and then restoring the
>> previous command bits afterwards, and see what effect that has. It'll be
>> interesting if it does, since obviously it seems to work as it is with
>> non-MMCONFIG access methods. Maybe the base address being set like that
>> interferes with MMCONFIG access itself somehow?
>
> I tried that, and it seems to get past probing the graphics device at
> least, but it hangs a bit later. It could be that the enable/disable I
> added wasn't correct though, I didn't check to see which one I should
> disable in the command word, which may be a problem (just disabled them
> both every probe). I'll try again with more precise enable/disable
> semantics.
There was a big discussion about this back in 2002, in which Linus
wasn't overly enthused about disabling the decode during probing due to
risk of causing problems with some devices:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/12/19/145
In this particular case (64-bit BAR) we might be able to avoid the
problem by changing the order in which we probe the two halves of the
address, i.e. change the top half to 0xffffffff before messing with the
bottom half and then change it back last. That way, we end up mapping it
way to the top of 64-bit address space, which hopefully is less likely
to conflict..
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-23 1:06 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
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 [this message]
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=46539378.6000508@shaw.ca \
--to=hancockr@shaw.ca \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=galibert@pobox.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--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