Re: [RFC PATCH] PCI MMCONFIG: add validation against ACPI motherboard resources

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/