Return value of __ffs is undefined if no set bit exists in
its argument. This indicates that the associated BAR has
invalid alignment.
Signed-off-by: Amey Narkhede <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
index 2ce636937c6e..ce5380bdd2fd 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
@@ -1044,10 +1044,11 @@ static int pbus_size_mem(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned long mask,
* resources.
*/
align = pci_resource_alignment(dev, r);
- order = __ffs(align) - 20;
- if (order < 0)
- order = 0;
- if (order >= ARRAY_SIZE(aligns)) {
+ if (align) {
+ order = __ffs(align) - 20;
+ order = (order < 0) ? 0 : order;
+ }
+ if (!align || order >= ARRAY_SIZE(aligns)) {
pci_warn(dev, "disabling BAR %d: %pR (bad alignment %#llx)\n",
i, r, (unsigned long long) align);
r->flags = 0;
--
2.31.1
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:25:38PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> Return value of __ffs is undefined if no set bit exists in
> its argument. This indicates that the associated BAR has
> invalid alignment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amey Narkhede <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
Thanks,
Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
On 21/04/22 01:57PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:25:38PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > Return value of __ffs is undefined if no set bit exists in
> > its argument. This indicates that the associated BAR has
> > invalid alignment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amey Narkhede <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 9 +++++----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Thanks,
> Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
A gentle ping :)
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:25:38PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> Return value of __ffs is undefined if no set bit exists in
> its argument. This indicates that the associated BAR has
> invalid alignment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amey Narkhede <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> index 2ce636937c6e..ce5380bdd2fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> @@ -1044,10 +1044,11 @@ static int pbus_size_mem(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned long mask,
> * resources.
> */
> align = pci_resource_alignment(dev, r);
> - order = __ffs(align) - 20;
> - if (order < 0)
> - order = 0;
> - if (order >= ARRAY_SIZE(aligns)) {
> + if (align) {
> + order = __ffs(align) - 20;
> + order = (order < 0) ? 0 : order;
> + }
> + if (!align || order >= ARRAY_SIZE(aligns)) {
> pci_warn(dev, "disabling BAR %d: %pR (bad alignment %#llx)\n",
> i, r, (unsigned long long) align);
> r->flags = 0;
I know this is solving a theoretical problem. Is it also solving a
*real* problem?
I dislike the way it complicates the code and the usage of "align" and
"order". I know that when "!align", we don't evaluate the
"order >= ARRAY_SIZE()" (which would involve an uninitialized value),
but it just seems ugly, and I'm not sure how much we benefit.
And the "disabling BAR" part is gross. I know you're not changing
that part, but it's just wrong. Setting r->flags = 0 certainly does
not disable the BAR. It might make Linux ignore it, but that doesn't
mean the hardware ignores it. When we turn on PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY, the
BAR is enabled along with all the other memory BARs.
Bjorn
On 21/05/25 05:01PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:25:38PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > Return value of __ffs is undefined if no set bit exists in
> > its argument. This indicates that the associated BAR has
> > invalid alignment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amey Narkhede <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 9 +++++----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > index 2ce636937c6e..ce5380bdd2fd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > @@ -1044,10 +1044,11 @@ static int pbus_size_mem(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned long mask,
> > * resources.
> > */
> > align = pci_resource_alignment(dev, r);
> > - order = __ffs(align) - 20;
> > - if (order < 0)
> > - order = 0;
> > - if (order >= ARRAY_SIZE(aligns)) {
> > + if (align) {
> > + order = __ffs(align) - 20;
> > + order = (order < 0) ? 0 : order;
> > + }
> > + if (!align || order >= ARRAY_SIZE(aligns)) {
> > pci_warn(dev, "disabling BAR %d: %pR (bad alignment %#llx)\n",
> > i, r, (unsigned long long) align);
> > r->flags = 0;
>
> I know this is solving a theoretical problem. Is it also solving a
> *real* problem?
>
> I dislike the way it complicates the code and the usage of "align" and
> "order". I know that when "!align", we don't evaluate the
> "order >= ARRAY_SIZE()" (which would involve an uninitialized value),
> but it just seems ugly, and I'm not sure how much we benefit.
>
> And the "disabling BAR" part is gross. I know you're not changing
> that part, but it's just wrong. Setting r->flags = 0 certainly does
> not disable the BAR. It might make Linux ignore it, but that doesn't
> mean the hardware ignores it. When we turn on PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY, the
> BAR is enabled along with all the other memory BARs.
>
> Bjorn
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Is there any way to properly
disable the BAR?
On the side note do you think this problem is
worth solving? I came across this during code inspection.
I mean if practically there aren't chances of
this bug occuring I'm okay with dropping this patch.
Thanks,
Amey
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 02:36:12PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> On 21/05/25 05:01PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:25:38PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > > Return value of __ffs is undefined if no set bit exists in
> > > its argument. This indicates that the associated BAR has
> > > invalid alignment.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Amey Narkhede <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 9 +++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > index 2ce636937c6e..ce5380bdd2fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > @@ -1044,10 +1044,11 @@ static int pbus_size_mem(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned long mask,
> > > * resources.
> > > */
> > > align = pci_resource_alignment(dev, r);
> > > - order = __ffs(align) - 20;
> > > - if (order < 0)
> > > - order = 0;
> > > - if (order >= ARRAY_SIZE(aligns)) {
> > > + if (align) {
> > > + order = __ffs(align) - 20;
> > > + order = (order < 0) ? 0 : order;
> > > + }
> > > + if (!align || order >= ARRAY_SIZE(aligns)) {
> > > pci_warn(dev, "disabling BAR %d: %pR (bad alignment %#llx)\n",
> > > i, r, (unsigned long long) align);
> > > r->flags = 0;
> >
> > I know this is solving a theoretical problem. Is it also solving a
> > *real* problem?
> >
> > I dislike the way it complicates the code and the usage of "align" and
> > "order". I know that when "!align", we don't evaluate the
> > "order >= ARRAY_SIZE()" (which would involve an uninitialized value),
> > but it just seems ugly, and I'm not sure how much we benefit.
> >
> > And the "disabling BAR" part is gross. I know you're not changing
> > that part, but it's just wrong. Setting r->flags = 0 certainly does
> > not disable the BAR. It might make Linux ignore it, but that doesn't
> > mean the hardware ignores it. When we turn on PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY, the
> > BAR is enabled along with all the other memory BARs.
> >
> > Bjorn
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Is there any way to properly
> disable the BAR?
Unfortunately there is no way to disable an individual BAR.
PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY applied to *all* memory BARs, and the same for
PCI_COMMAND_IO.
> On the side note do you think this problem is
> worth solving? I came across this during code inspection.
> I mean if practically there aren't chances of
> this bug occuring I'm okay with dropping this patch.
I guess I would just drop it. Yes, it's a potential problem, but I
couldn't figure out a solution that really seemed clean.
Bjorn