From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: PCI config space accessor functions should not ignore the segment argument
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:10:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110721071021.GC9216@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E258BD6020000780004E3BE@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
> The access method 1 accessor, as it can be used for extended accesses
> (on AMD systems) instead gets added checks for the passed in segment to
> be zero (returning an error just like out of range values of the other
> arguments would cause).
* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> Without this change, the majority of the raw PCI config space access
> functions silently ignore a non-zero segment argument, which is
> certainly wrong.
>
> Apart from pci_direct_conf1, all other non-MMCFG access methods get
> used only for non-extended accesses (i.e. assigned to raw_pci_ops
> only). Consequently, with the way raw_pci_{read,write}() work, it would
> be a coding error to call these functions with a non-zero segment (with
> the current call flow this cannot happen afaict).
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
>
> ---
> arch/x86/pci/ce4100.c | 4 ++++
> arch/x86/pci/direct.c | 6 ++++--
> arch/x86/pci/numaq_32.c | 2 ++
> arch/x86/pci/olpc.c | 4 ++++
> arch/x86/pci/pcbios.c | 2 ++
> 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- 3.0-rc7/arch/x86/pci/ce4100.c
> +++ 3.0-rc7-x86-pci-access-seg/arch/x86/pci/ce4100.c
> @@ -257,6 +257,8 @@ static int ce4100_conf_read(unsigned int
> {
> int i;
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> +
> if (bus == 1) {
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(bus1_fixups); i++) {
> if (bus1_fixups[i].dev_func == devfn &&
> @@ -282,6 +284,8 @@ static int ce4100_conf_write(unsigned in
> {
> int i;
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> +
> if (bus == 1) {
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(bus1_fixups); i++) {
> if (bus1_fixups[i].dev_func == devfn &&
> --- 3.0-rc7/arch/x86/pci/direct.c
> +++ 3.0-rc7-x86-pci-access-seg/arch/x86/pci/direct.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ static int pci_conf1_read(unsigned int s
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - if ((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095)) {
> + if (seg || (bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095)) {
> *value = -1;
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static int pci_conf1_write(unsigned int
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - if ((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095))
> + if (seg || (bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 4095))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pci_config_lock, flags);
> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ static int pci_conf2_read(unsigned int s
> unsigned long flags;
> int dev, fn;
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> if ((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 255)) {
> *value = -1;
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -138,6 +139,7 @@ static int pci_conf2_write(unsigned int
> unsigned long flags;
> int dev, fn;
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> if ((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 255))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> --- 3.0-rc7/arch/x86/pci/numaq_32.c
> +++ 3.0-rc7-x86-pci-access-seg/arch/x86/pci/numaq_32.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ static int pci_conf1_mq_read(unsigned in
> unsigned long flags;
> void *adr __iomem = XQUAD_PORT_ADDR(0xcfc, BUS2QUAD(bus));
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> if (!value || (bus >= MAX_MP_BUSSES) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 255))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -73,6 +74,7 @@ static int pci_conf1_mq_write(unsigned i
> unsigned long flags;
> void *adr __iomem = XQUAD_PORT_ADDR(0xcfc, BUS2QUAD(bus));
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> if ((bus >= MAX_MP_BUSSES) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 255))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> --- 3.0-rc7/arch/x86/pci/olpc.c
> +++ 3.0-rc7-x86-pci-access-seg/arch/x86/pci/olpc.c
> @@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ static int pci_olpc_read(unsigned int se
> {
> uint32_t *addr;
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> +
> /* Use the hardware mechanism for non-simulated devices */
> if (!is_simulated(bus, devfn))
> return pci_direct_conf1.read(seg, bus, devfn, reg, len, value);
> @@ -264,6 +266,8 @@ static int pci_olpc_read(unsigned int se
> static int pci_olpc_write(unsigned int seg, unsigned int bus,
> unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, uint32_t value)
> {
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> +
> /* Use the hardware mechanism for non-simulated devices */
> if (!is_simulated(bus, devfn))
> return pci_direct_conf1.write(seg, bus, devfn, reg, len, value);
> --- 3.0-rc7/arch/x86/pci/pcbios.c
> +++ 3.0-rc7-x86-pci-access-seg/arch/x86/pci/pcbios.c
> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int pci_bios_read(unsigned int se
> unsigned long flags;
> unsigned long bx = (bus << 8) | devfn;
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> if (!value || (bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 255))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -247,6 +248,7 @@ static int pci_bios_write(unsigned int s
> unsigned long flags;
> unsigned long bx = (bus << 8) | devfn;
>
> + BUG_ON(seg);
> if ((bus > 255) || (devfn > 255) || (reg > 255))
> return -EINVAL;
Not sure we want a BUG_ON() which crashes the box - wouldn't a
WARN_ON() suffice?
also, the analysis/explanation is a bit incomplete:
> The access method 1 accessor, as it can be used for extended accesses
> (on AMD systems) instead gets added checks for the passed in segment to
> be zero (returning an error just like out of range values of the other
> arguments would cause).
Under what circumstances can this trigger in practice, with the
current code?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-21 7:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-19 11:51 Jan Beulich
2011-07-21 7:10 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2011-07-21 7:37 ` Jan Beulich
2011-07-21 9:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-21 19:59 ` 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=20110721071021.GC9216@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®