On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 04:52:42PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 08:39:42PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system
> > RAM in the PCI host bridge window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
> > commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address
> > space").
> >
> > To work around this bug Linux excludes E820 reserved addresses when
> > allocating addresses from the PCI host bridge window since 2010.
> >
> > Recently (2020) some systems have shown-up with E820 reservations which
> > cover the entire _CRS returned PCI bridge memory window, causing all
> > attempts to assign memory to PCI BARs which have not been setup by the
> > BIOS to fail. For example here are the relevant dmesg bits from a
> > Lenovo IdeaPad 3 15IIL 81WE:
> >
> > [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
> > pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
> >
> > The ACPI specifications appear to allow this new behavior:
> >
> > The relationship between E820 and ACPI _CRS is not really very clear.
> > ACPI v6.3, sec 15, table 15-374, says AddressRangeReserved means:
> >
> > This range of addresses is in use or reserved by the system and is
> > not to be included in the allocatable memory pool of the operating
> > system's memory manager.
> >
> > and it may be used when:
> >
> > The address range is in use by a memory-mapped system device.
> >
> > Furthermore, sec 15.2 says:
> >
> > Address ranges defined for baseboard memory-mapped I/O devices, such
> > as APICs, are returned as reserved.
> >
> > A PCI host bridge qualifies as a baseboard memory-mapped I/O device,
> > and its apertures are in use and certainly should not be included in
> > the general allocatable pool, so the fact that some BIOS-es reports
> > the PCI aperture as "reserved" in E820 doesn't seem like a BIOS bug.
> >
> > So it seems that the excluding of E820 reserved addresses is a mistake.
> >
> > Ideally Linux would fully stop excluding E820 reserved addresses,
> > but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
> > Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring
> > the E820 reservations for any systems from now on.
> >
> > Old systems are defined here as BIOS year < 2018, this was chosen to
> > make sure that pci_use_e820 will not be set on the currently affected
> > systems, while at the same time also taking into account that the
> > systems for which the E820 checking was originally added may have
> > received BIOS updates for quite a while (esp. CVE related ones),
> > giving them a more recent BIOS year then 2010.
> >
> > Also add pci=no_e820 and pci=use_e820 options to allow overriding
> > the BIOS year heuristic.
> >
> > BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206459
> > BugLink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868899
> > BugLink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871793
> > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1878279
> > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1931715
> > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1932069
> > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1921649
> > Cc: Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Hui Wang <hui.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I haven't seen anybody else eager to merge this, so I guess I'll stick
> my neck out here.
>
> I applied this to my for-linus branch for v5.15.
(I only applied patch 1/2, to fix the PCI BAR assignments. The 2/2
patch to convert printk to pr_info might be nice, but definitely not
-rc7 material. I'm hesitant enough about 1/2.)
