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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PCI MMCONFIG: add validation against ACPI motherboard resources
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:04:09 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4654C869.8080804@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705231152.57796.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:06 pm Robert Hancock wrote:
>> 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..
>
> Fixed it (finally). I don't think moving the 64 bit probing around
> would make a difference, since we'd restore its original value anyway
> before moving on to the 32 bit probe which is where I think the problem
> is.
You couldn't just reorder the code the way it is now, you'd have to
rearrange the way we do things for 64-bit BARs:
-write FFFFFFFF to high part of 64-bit address (we end up moving the BAR
to 0xFFFFFFFFC0000000 for example)
-If any bits stick, we know what the size is now (more than 4GB of
decode), so just change it back, we're done
-If not, we need to check the low part, so write FFFFFFFF to low part of
64-bit address (BAR moves to 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF)
-Check which bits stick and calculate the address
-Change the low part of the address back (BAR moves to 0xFFFFFFFFC000000)
-Change the high part of the address back (BAR moves to the original
0xC0000000 address)
This means that at no point do we map the BAR anywhere near the top of
32-bit memory, so we should avoid this issue in this particular case. I
don't think this strategy is too likely to break anything, surely less
likely than disabling command bits. Jesse, you might want to try hacking
up something like this and see what happens.
--
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 23:05 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
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 [this message]
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=4654C869.8080804@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 \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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