On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:27:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:47:07PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >> The [0 - 64k] ACPI PCI IO port resource boundary check in:
> >>
> >> acpi_dev_ioresource_flags()
> >>
> >> is currently applied blindly in the ACPI resource parsing to all
> >> architectures, but only x86 suffers from that IO space limitation.
> >>
> >> On arches (ie IA64 and ARM64) where IO space is memory mapped,
> >> the PCI root bridges IO resource windows are firstly initialized from
> >> the _CRS (in acpi_decode_space()) and contain the CPU physical address
> >> at which a root bridge decodes IO space in the CPU physical address
> >> space with the offset value representing the offset required to translate
> >> the PCI bus address into the CPU physical address.
> >>
> >> The IO resource windows are then parsed and updated in arch code
> >> before creating and enumerating PCI buses (eg IA64 add_io_space())
> >> to map in an arch specific way the obtained CPU physical address range
> >> to a slice of virtual address space reserved to map PCI IO space,
> >> ending up with PCI bridges resource windows containing IO
> >> resources like the following on a working IA64 configuration:
> >>
> >> PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io 0x1000000-0x100ffff window] (bus
> >> address [0x0000-0xffff])
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x000a0000-0x000fffff window]
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x80000000-0x8fffffff window]
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x80004000000-0x800ffffffff window]
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00]
> >>
> >> This implies that the [0 - 64K] check in acpi_dev_ioresource_flags()
> >> leaves platforms with memory mapped IO space (ie IA64) broken (ie kernel
> >> can't claim IO resources since the host bridge IO resource is disabled
> >> and discarded by ACPI core code, see log on IA64 with missing root bridge
> >> IO resource, silently filtered by current [0 - 64k] check in
> >> acpi_dev_ioresource_flags()):
> >>
> >> PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x000a0000-0x000fffff window]
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x80000000-0x8fffffff window]
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x80004000000-0x800ffffffff window]
> >> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00]
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> pci 0000:00:03.0: [1002:515e] type 00 class 0x030000
> >> pci 0000:00:03.0: reg 0x10: [mem 0x80000000-0x87ffffff pref]
> >> pci 0000:00:03.0: reg 0x14: [io 0x1000-0x10ff]
> >> pci 0000:00:03.0: reg 0x18: [mem 0x88020000-0x8802ffff]
> >> pci 0000:00:03.0: reg 0x30: [mem 0x88000000-0x8801ffff pref]
> >> pci 0000:00:03.0: supports D1 D2
> >> pci 0000:00:03.0: can't claim BAR 1 [io 0x1000-0x10ff]: no compatible
> >> bridge window
> >>
> >> For this reason, the IO port resources boundaries check in generic ACPI
> >> parsing code should be moved to x86 arch code so that more arches (ie
> >> ARM64) can benefit from the generic ACPI resources parsing interface
> >> without incurring in unexpected resource filtering, fixing at the same
> >> time current breakage on IA64.
> >>
> >> This patch moves the IO ports boundary [0 - 64k] check to x86 arch code
> >> code that validates the PCI host bridge resources.
> >
> > I definitely agree with moving this check out of the generic ACPI
> > code, so while I have a minor question below,
> >
> > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >> Fixes: 3772aea7d6f3 ("ia64/PCI/ACPI: Use common ACPI resource parsing
> >> interface for host bridge")
> >
> > 3772aea7d6f3 was merged via the ACPI tree. Does it make sense to
> > have this fix for it merged the same way? I'll assume so unless
> > Rafael thinks otherwise.
>
> I'll apply it, thanks!
>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>
> >> Tested-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Mark Salter <msalter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> v1 -> v2
> >>
> >> - Updated commit log to report missing IO resources
> >> - Fixed function ioport_valid() comment 16k/64k typo
> >>
> >> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/1/157
> >>
> >> arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> >> drivers/acpi/resource.c | 3 ---
> >> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> >> index 3cd6983..cec68e7 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> >> @@ -275,11 +275,14 @@ static void pci_acpi_root_release_info(struct acpi_pci_root_info *ci)
> >> * to access PCI configuration space.
> >> *
> >> * So explicitly filter out PCI CFG IO ports[0xCF8-0xCFF].
> >> + *
> >> + * Furthermore, IO ports address space is limited to 64k on x86,
> >> + * any IO resource exceeding the boundary must therefore be discarded.
> >> */
> >> -static bool resource_is_pcicfg_ioport(struct resource *res)
> >> +static bool ioport_valid(struct resource *res)
> >> {
> >> - return (res->flags & IORESOURCE_IO) &&
> >> - res->start == 0xCF8 && res->end == 0xCFF;
> >> + return !(res->start == 0xCF8 && res->end == 0xCFF) &&
> >> + !(res->end >= 0x10003);
> >
> > Is the "res->end >= 0x10003" test actually fixing a problem?
> >
> > I think 4d6b4e69a245 ("x86/PCI/ACPI: Use common interface to support
> > PCI host bridge") is the x86 change corresponding to 3772aea7d6f3. I
> > took a quick look through it, and I didn't see a res->end test before
> > 4d6b4e69a245, but maybe I missed it.
> >
> > The reason I'm asking is because there's no reason in principle that
> > x86 couldn't support multiple host bridges, one with a 0-64K I/O space
> > accessible via the x86 inb/outb instructions, and others with more I/O
> > space accessible only via the in-kernel inb()/outb() functions, which
> > would use an MMIO region that the host bridge converts to I/O accesses
> > on the PCI side. This is what ia64 does, and x86 could do something
> > similar. If it did, it would be fine for res->end to be above
> > 0x10003 for those memory-mapped I/O spaces.
>
> Interesting, but I guess quite theoretical. :-)
>
> In any case I think that may be fixed up on top of the $subject patch.
Agreed on both counts. Thanks for taking this.
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
