Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system RAM
in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address
space").
To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for PCI
mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
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:
[ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
[ 0.557473] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
reservations like Windows does 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 orignally 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 <[email protected]>
Cc: Hui Wang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
- Replace the per model DMI quirk approach with disabling E820 reservations
checking for all systems with a BIOS year >= 2018
- Add documentation for the new kernel-parameters to
Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
---
Other patches trying to address the same issue:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
V1 patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
---
.../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 6 ++++
arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h | 10 +++++++
arch/x86/kernel/resource.c | 4 +++
arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
arch/x86/pci/common.c | 6 ++++
5 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index 43dc35fe5bc0..969cde5d74c8 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -3949,6 +3949,12 @@
please report a bug.
nocrs [X86] Ignore PCI host bridge windows from ACPI.
If you need to use this, please report a bug.
+ use_e820 [X86] Honor E820 reservations when allocating
+ PCI host bridge memory. If you need to use this,
+ please report a bug.
+ no_e820 [X86] ignore E820 reservations when allocating
+ PCI host bridge memory. If you need to use this,
+ please report a bug.
routeirq Do IRQ routing for all PCI devices.
This is normally done in pci_enable_device(),
so this option is a temporary workaround
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
index 490411dba438..e45d661f81de 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
@@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ do { \
#define PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS 0x100000
#define PCI_NOASSIGN_BARS 0x200000
#define PCI_BIG_ROOT_WINDOW 0x400000
+#define PCI_USE_E820 0x800000
+#define PCI_NO_E820 0x1000000
extern unsigned int pci_probe;
extern unsigned long pirq_table_addr;
@@ -64,6 +66,8 @@ void pcibios_scan_specific_bus(int busn);
/* pci-irq.c */
+struct pci_dev;
+
struct irq_info {
u8 bus, devfn; /* Bus, device and function */
struct {
@@ -232,3 +236,9 @@ static inline void mmio_config_writel(void __iomem *pos, u32 val)
# define x86_default_pci_init_irq NULL
# define x86_default_pci_fixup_irqs NULL
#endif
+
+#if defined CONFIG_PCI && defined CONFIG_ACPI
+extern bool pci_use_e820;
+#else
+#define pci_use_e820 false
+#endif
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
index 9b9fb7882c20..e8dc9bc327bd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
#include <linux/ioport.h>
#include <asm/e820/api.h>
+#include <asm/pci_x86.h>
static void resource_clip(struct resource *res, resource_size_t start,
resource_size_t end)
@@ -28,6 +29,9 @@ static void remove_e820_regions(struct resource *avail)
int i;
struct e820_entry *entry;
+ if (!pci_use_e820)
+ return;
+
for (i = 0; i < e820_table->nr_entries; i++) {
entry = &e820_table->entries[i];
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
index 948656069cdd..6c2febe84b6f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ struct pci_root_info {
static bool pci_use_crs = true;
static bool pci_ignore_seg = false;
+/* Consumed in arch/x86/kernel/resource.c */
+bool pci_use_e820 = false;
static int __init set_use_crs(const struct dmi_system_id *id)
{
@@ -160,6 +162,33 @@ void __init pci_acpi_crs_quirks(void)
"if necessary, use \"pci=%s\" and report a bug\n",
pci_use_crs ? "Using" : "Ignoring",
pci_use_crs ? "nocrs" : "use_crs");
+
+ /*
+ * Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system
+ * RAM in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
+ * commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address space").
+ * To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
+ * addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for
+ * PCI mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
+ * In 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 to fail if Linux honors the E820 reservations.
+ *
+ * Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
+ * allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
+ * Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
+ * reservations like Windows does for any systems from now on.
+ */
+ if (year >= 0 && year < 2018)
+ pci_use_e820 = true;
+
+ if (pci_probe & PCI_NO_E820)
+ pci_use_e820 = false;
+ else if (pci_probe & PCI_USE_E820)
+ pci_use_e820 = true;
+
+ printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: %s E820 reservations for host bridge windows\n",
+ pci_use_e820 ? "Honoring" : "Ignoring");
}
#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MMCONFIG
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
index 3507f456fcd0..091ec7e94fcb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
@@ -595,6 +595,12 @@ char *__init pcibios_setup(char *str)
} else if (!strcmp(str, "nocrs")) {
pci_probe |= PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS;
return NULL;
+ } else if (!strcmp(str, "use_e820")) {
+ pci_probe |= PCI_USE_E820;
+ return NULL;
+ } else if (!strcmp(str, "no_e820")) {
+ pci_probe |= PCI_NO_E820;
+ return NULL;
#ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
} else if (!strcmp(str, "big_root_window")) {
pci_probe |= PCI_BIG_ROOT_WINDOW;
--
2.31.1
Hi Hans,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system RAM
> in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
> commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address
> space").
>
> To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
> addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for PCI
> mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
>
> 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:
>
> [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
> [ 0.557473] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
>
> Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
> allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
> Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
> reservations like Windows does 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 orignally 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 Gr?goire <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hui Wang <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
Thanks for fixing this! Few comments below. Otherwise looks good,
Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Replace the per model DMI quirk approach with disabling E820 reservations
> checking for all systems with a BIOS year >= 2018
> - Add documentation for the new kernel-parameters to
> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> ---
> Other patches trying to address the same issue:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> V1 patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> ---
> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 6 ++++
> arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h | 10 +++++++
> arch/x86/kernel/resource.c | 4 +++
> arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
> arch/x86/pci/common.c | 6 ++++
> 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 43dc35fe5bc0..969cde5d74c8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -3949,6 +3949,12 @@
> please report a bug.
> nocrs [X86] Ignore PCI host bridge windows from ACPI.
> If you need to use this, please report a bug.
> + use_e820 [X86] Honor E820 reservations when allocating
> + PCI host bridge memory. If you need to use this,
> + please report a bug.
> + no_e820 [X86] ignore E820 reservations when allocating
> + PCI host bridge memory. If you need to use this,
> + please report a bug.
> routeirq Do IRQ routing for all PCI devices.
> This is normally done in pci_enable_device(),
> so this option is a temporary workaround
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
> index 490411dba438..e45d661f81de 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ do { \
> #define PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS 0x100000
> #define PCI_NOASSIGN_BARS 0x200000
> #define PCI_BIG_ROOT_WINDOW 0x400000
> +#define PCI_USE_E820 0x800000
> +#define PCI_NO_E820 0x1000000
>
> extern unsigned int pci_probe;
> extern unsigned long pirq_table_addr;
> @@ -64,6 +66,8 @@ void pcibios_scan_specific_bus(int busn);
>
> /* pci-irq.c */
>
> +struct pci_dev;
Is this really needed?
> +
> struct irq_info {
> u8 bus, devfn; /* Bus, device and function */
> struct {
> @@ -232,3 +236,9 @@ static inline void mmio_config_writel(void __iomem *pos, u32 val)
> # define x86_default_pci_init_irq NULL
> # define x86_default_pci_fixup_irqs NULL
> #endif
> +
> +#if defined CONFIG_PCI && defined CONFIG_ACPI
Should these be using parentheses?
#if defined(CONFIG_PCI) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI)
> +extern bool pci_use_e820;
> +#else
> +#define pci_use_e820 false
> +#endif
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
> index 9b9fb7882c20..e8dc9bc327bd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> #include <linux/ioport.h>
> #include <asm/e820/api.h>
> +#include <asm/pci_x86.h>
>
> static void resource_clip(struct resource *res, resource_size_t start,
> resource_size_t end)
> @@ -28,6 +29,9 @@ static void remove_e820_regions(struct resource *avail)
> int i;
> struct e820_entry *entry;
>
> + if (!pci_use_e820)
> + return;
> +
> for (i = 0; i < e820_table->nr_entries; i++) {
> entry = &e820_table->entries[i];
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> index 948656069cdd..6c2febe84b6f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ struct pci_root_info {
>
> static bool pci_use_crs = true;
> static bool pci_ignore_seg = false;
> +/* Consumed in arch/x86/kernel/resource.c */
> +bool pci_use_e820 = false;
>
> static int __init set_use_crs(const struct dmi_system_id *id)
> {
> @@ -160,6 +162,33 @@ void __init pci_acpi_crs_quirks(void)
> "if necessary, use \"pci=%s\" and report a bug\n",
> pci_use_crs ? "Using" : "Ignoring",
> pci_use_crs ? "nocrs" : "use_crs");
> +
> + /*
> + * Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system
> + * RAM in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
> + * commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address space").
> + * To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
> + * addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for
> + * PCI mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
> + * In 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 to fail if Linux honors the E820 reservations.
> + *
> + * Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
> + * allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
> + * Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
> + * reservations like Windows does for any systems from now on.
> + */
> + if (year >= 0 && year < 2018)
> + pci_use_e820 = true;
> +
> + if (pci_probe & PCI_NO_E820)
> + pci_use_e820 = false;
> + else if (pci_probe & PCI_USE_E820)
> + pci_use_e820 = true;
Should it check if both are passed at the same time and complain, or we
don't care?
> +
> + printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: %s E820 reservations for host bridge windows\n",
> + pci_use_e820 ? "Honoring" : "Ignoring");
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MMCONFIG
> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> index 3507f456fcd0..091ec7e94fcb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> @@ -595,6 +595,12 @@ char *__init pcibios_setup(char *str)
> } else if (!strcmp(str, "nocrs")) {
> pci_probe |= PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS;
> return NULL;
> + } else if (!strcmp(str, "use_e820")) {
> + pci_probe |= PCI_USE_E820;
> + return NULL;
> + } else if (!strcmp(str, "no_e820")) {
> + pci_probe |= PCI_NO_E820;
> + return NULL;
> #ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> } else if (!strcmp(str, "big_root_window")) {
> pci_probe |= PCI_BIG_ROOT_WINDOW;
> --
> 2.31.1
Hi,
On 10/11/21 3:53 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system RAM
>> in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
>> commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address
>> space").
>>
>> To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
>> addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for PCI
>> mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
>> [ 0.557473] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
>>
>> Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
>> allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
>> Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
>> reservations like Windows does 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 orignally 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 <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Hui Wang <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks for fixing this! Few comments below. Otherwise looks good,
You're welcome, I hope this solution is acceptable to everyone and
that we can finally leave this problem behind us.
> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]>
Thank you.
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Replace the per model DMI quirk approach with disabling E820 reservations
>> checking for all systems with a BIOS year >= 2018
>> - Add documentation for the new kernel-parameters to
>> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> ---
>> Other patches trying to address the same issue:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>> V1 patch:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>> ---
>> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 6 ++++
>> arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h | 10 +++++++
>> arch/x86/kernel/resource.c | 4 +++
>> arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/x86/pci/common.c | 6 ++++
>> 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> index 43dc35fe5bc0..969cde5d74c8 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> @@ -3949,6 +3949,12 @@
>> please report a bug.
>> nocrs [X86] Ignore PCI host bridge windows from ACPI.
>> If you need to use this, please report a bug.
>> + use_e820 [X86] Honor E820 reservations when allocating
>> + PCI host bridge memory. If you need to use this,
>> + please report a bug.
>> + no_e820 [X86] ignore E820 reservations when allocating
>> + PCI host bridge memory. If you need to use this,
>> + please report a bug.
>> routeirq Do IRQ routing for all PCI devices.
>> This is normally done in pci_enable_device(),
>> so this option is a temporary workaround
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> index 490411dba438..e45d661f81de 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ do { \
>> #define PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS 0x100000
>> #define PCI_NOASSIGN_BARS 0x200000
>> #define PCI_BIG_ROOT_WINDOW 0x400000
>> +#define PCI_USE_E820 0x800000
>> +#define PCI_NO_E820 0x1000000
>>
>> extern unsigned int pci_probe;
>> extern unsigned long pirq_table_addr;
>> @@ -64,6 +66,8 @@ void pcibios_scan_specific_bus(int busn);
>>
>> /* pci-irq.c */
>>
>> +struct pci_dev;
>
> Is this really needed?
Yes, otherwise the compiler becomes unhappy with the new:
#include <asm/pci_x86.h>
in arch/x86/kernel/resource.c . So far the missing forward declaration
was likely not an issue because other consumers of pci_x86.h where already
including some other header which declares struct pci_dev.
>
>> +
>> struct irq_info {
>> u8 bus, devfn; /* Bus, device and function */
>> struct {
>> @@ -232,3 +236,9 @@ static inline void mmio_config_writel(void __iomem *pos, u32 val)
>> # define x86_default_pci_init_irq NULL
>> # define x86_default_pci_fixup_irqs NULL
>> #endif
>> +
>> +#if defined CONFIG_PCI && defined CONFIG_ACPI
>
> Should these be using parentheses?
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_PCI) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI)
Both forms are used, the form I've chosen is e.g. also used in:
arch/x86/include/asm/vdso.h
If there is a strong preference for switching to the style
with the parentheses I'll happily do a v3 with that fixed.
If that ends up being the only objection to this patch
I'm quite happy to respin :)
>
>> +extern bool pci_use_e820;
>> +#else
>> +#define pci_use_e820 false
>> +#endif
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
>> index 9b9fb7882c20..e8dc9bc327bd 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/resource.c
>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> #include <linux/ioport.h>
>> #include <asm/e820/api.h>
>> +#include <asm/pci_x86.h>
>>
>> static void resource_clip(struct resource *res, resource_size_t start,
>> resource_size_t end)
>> @@ -28,6 +29,9 @@ static void remove_e820_regions(struct resource *avail)
>> int i;
>> struct e820_entry *entry;
>>
>> + if (!pci_use_e820)
>> + return;
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i < e820_table->nr_entries; i++) {
>> entry = &e820_table->entries[i];
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
>> index 948656069cdd..6c2febe84b6f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
>> @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ struct pci_root_info {
>>
>> static bool pci_use_crs = true;
>> static bool pci_ignore_seg = false;
>> +/* Consumed in arch/x86/kernel/resource.c */
>> +bool pci_use_e820 = false;
>>
>> static int __init set_use_crs(const struct dmi_system_id *id)
>> {
>> @@ -160,6 +162,33 @@ void __init pci_acpi_crs_quirks(void)
>> "if necessary, use \"pci=%s\" and report a bug\n",
>> pci_use_crs ? "Using" : "Ignoring",
>> pci_use_crs ? "nocrs" : "use_crs");
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system
>> + * RAM in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
>> + * commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address space").
>> + * To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
>> + * addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for
>> + * PCI mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
>> + * In 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 to fail if Linux honors the E820 reservations.
>> + *
>> + * Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
>> + * allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
>> + * Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
>> + * reservations like Windows does for any systems from now on.
>> + */
>> + if (year >= 0 && year < 2018)
>> + pci_use_e820 = true;
>> +
>> + if (pci_probe & PCI_NO_E820)
>> + pci_use_e820 = false;
>> + else if (pci_probe & PCI_USE_E820)
>> + pci_use_e820 = true;
>
> Should it check if both are passed at the same time and complain, or we
> don't care?
This mirrors the similar code for pci_use_crs which also prefers the
nocrs/no_e820 option over the use_crs/_e820 option and which also does
not warn if both are present.
>
>> +
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: %s E820 reservations for host bridge windows\n",
>> + pci_use_e820 ? "Honoring" : "Ignoring");
>> }
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MMCONFIG
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> index 3507f456fcd0..091ec7e94fcb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> @@ -595,6 +595,12 @@ char *__init pcibios_setup(char *str)
>> } else if (!strcmp(str, "nocrs")) {
>> pci_probe |= PCI_ROOT_NO_CRS;
>> return NULL;
>> + } else if (!strcmp(str, "use_e820")) {
>> + pci_probe |= PCI_USE_E820;
>> + return NULL;
>> + } else if (!strcmp(str, "no_e820")) {
>> + pci_probe |= PCI_NO_E820;
>> + return NULL;
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
>> } else if (!strcmp(str, "big_root_window")) {
>> pci_probe |= PCI_BIG_ROOT_WINDOW;
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>
Regards,
Hans
On 10/11/21 9:53 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system RAM
>> in the PCI bridge memory window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
>> commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address
>> space").
>>
>> To avoid this Linux by default excludes E820 reservations when allocating
>> addresses since 2010. Windows however ignores E820 reserved regions for PCI
>> mem allocations, so in hindsight Linux honoring them is a problem.
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
>> [ 0.557473] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
>>
>> Ideally Linux would fully stop honoring E820 reservations for PCI mem
>> allocations, but then the old systems this was added for will regress.
>> Instead keep the old behavior for old systems, while ignoring the E820
>> reservations like Windows does 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 orignally 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 <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Hui Wang <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
> Thanks for fixing this! Few comments below. Otherwise looks good,
>
> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]>
>
Thanks for fixing this! We almost reach a solution. :-)
Thanks,
Hui.
Hi Hans,
Thank you for sending the patch over!
[...]
> [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
> [ 0.557473] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
A very small nitpick: we usually remove time/date stamps from kernel ring
buffer outputs keeping only the relevant message parts left.
[...]
> 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 orignally added may have
A tiny typo of "originally" in the sentence above.
[...]
> @@ -232,3 +236,9 @@ static inline void mmio_config_writel(void __iomem *pos, u32 val)
> # define x86_default_pci_init_irq NULL
> # define x86_default_pci_fixup_irqs NULL
> #endif
> +
> +#if defined CONFIG_PCI && defined CONFIG_ACPI
I know that Mika already asked about this, and you responded, so I can only
added: brackets, let's add brackets, most definitely. :)
[...]
> +/* Consumed in arch/x86/kernel/resource.c */
> +bool pci_use_e820 = false;
A small nitpick: not sure if this comment is needed as probably most people
working with this code would use "git grep" and likes to list occurrences
where the variables is used. But, this is highly subjective, thus there is
probably nothing to change here.
> + printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: %s E820 reservations for host bridge windows\n",
> + pci_use_e820 ? "Honoring" : "Ignoring");
I know you followed the existing style, which is very much appreciated, but
if and where possible, we should move to newer API/style and replace the
printk() above with pr_info(). New code should not be adding old style if
it can be helped (checkpatch.pl would warn about this too). What do yo you
think?
Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof,
On 10/14/21 12:13 AM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> Thank you for sending the patch over!
>
> [...]
>> [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
>> [ 0.557473] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
>
> A very small nitpick: we usually remove time/date stamps from kernel ring
> buffer outputs keeping only the relevant message parts left.
Ok, I'll do a v3 fixing this.
>
> [...]
>> 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 orignally added may have
>
> A tiny typo of "originally" in the sentence above.
And this.
> [...]
>> @@ -232,3 +236,9 @@ static inline void mmio_config_writel(void __iomem *pos, u32 val)
>> # define x86_default_pci_init_irq NULL
>> # define x86_default_pci_fixup_irqs NULL
>> #endif
>> +
>> +#if defined CONFIG_PCI && defined CONFIG_ACPI
>
> I know that Mika already asked about this, and you responded, so I can only
> added: brackets, let's add brackets, most definitely. :)
I've no big preference either way, so I'll move to using
parentheses for the next version.
>
> [...]
>> +/* Consumed in arch/x86/kernel/resource.c */
>> +bool pci_use_e820 = false;
>
> A small nitpick: not sure if this comment is needed as probably most people
> working with this code would use "git grep" and likes to list occurrences
> where the variables is used. But, this is highly subjective, thus there is
> probably nothing to change here.
I put it the comment there because the other use_foo flag directly above
it are all static, so it is there to explain why this one is not static.
At least that was my idea behind the comment :)
>
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: %s E820 reservations for host bridge windows\n",
>> + pci_use_e820 ? "Honoring" : "Ignoring");
>
> I know you followed the existing style, which is very much appreciated, but
> if and where possible, we should move to newer API/style and replace the
> printk() above with pr_info(). New code should not be adding old style if
> it can be helped (checkpatch.pl would warn about this too). What do yo you
> think?
Yes checkpatch complained about this, still I deliberately ignored that,
as you said I'm following the existing style here. I very much dislike
mixing styles in a single file. If we want to change this for this file
then IMHO the right thing to do would be a follow up patch changing all
the printk-s at once.
Regards,
Hans