Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161355AbbKENxx (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:53:53 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com ([209.85.217.173]:35043 "EHLO mail-lb0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1032666AbbKENxu (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:53:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [Bugfix v4] PCI, ACPI: Fix regressions caused by resource_size_t overflow with 32-bit kernel To: Jiang Liu , Tomasz Nowicki References: <559107F2.3080701@pr.hu> <1436340399-19695-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <563780FC.5070503@linaro.org> <563B5161.1060105@semihalf.com> <563B588C.1010507@linux.intel.com> Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Bjorn Helgaas , Ingo Molnar , Boszormenyi Zoltan , Len Brown , LKML , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "x86 @ kernel . org" From: Tomasz Nowicki Message-ID: <563B5F62.7040102@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:53:38 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <563B588C.1010507@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5837 Lines: 134 On 05.11.2015 14:24, Jiang Liu wrote: > On 2015/11/5 20:53, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: >> On 02.11.2015 16:27, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: >>> On 08.07.2015 09:26, Jiang Liu wrote: >>>> Zoltan Boszormenyi reported this regression: >>>> "There's a Realtek RTL8111/8168/8411 (PCI ID 10ec:8168, Subsystem ID >>>> 1565:230e) network chip on the mainboard. After the r8169 driver >>>> loaded >>>> the IRQs in the machine went berserk. Keyboard keypressed arrived >>>> with >>>> considerable latency and duplicated, so no real work was possible. >>>> The machine responded to the power button but didn't actually power >>>> down. It just stuck at the powering down message. I had to press the >>>> power button for 4 seconds to power it down. >>>> >>>> The computer is a POS machine with a big battery inside. Because >>>> of this, >>>> either ACPI or the Realtek chip kept the bad state and after >>>> rebooting, >>>> the network chip didn't even show up in lspci. Not even the PXE ROM >>>> announced itself during boot. I had to disconnect the battery to >>>> beat >>>> some sense back to the computer. >>>> >>>> The regression happens with 4.0.5, 4.1.0-rc8 and 4.1.0-final. >>>> 3.18.16 was >>>> good." >>>> >>>> The regression is caused by commit 593669c2ac0f ("x86/PCI/ACPI: Use >>>> common >>>> ACPI resource interfaces to simplify implementation"). Since commit >>>> 593669c2ac0f, x86 PCI ACPI host bridge driver validates ACPI >>>> resources by >>>> first converting an ACPI resource to a 'struct resource' structure and >>>> then applying checks against the converted resource structure. The >>>> 'start' >>>> and 'end' fields in 'struct resource' are defined to be type of >>>> resource_size_t, which may be 32 bits or 64 bits depending on >>>> CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT. >>>> >>>> This may cause incorrect resource validation results with 32-bit kernels >>>> because 64-bit ACPI resource descriptors may get truncated when >>>> converting >>>> to 32-bit 'start' and 'end' fields in 'struct resource'. It eventually >>>> affects PCI resource allocation subsystem and makes some PCI devices and >>>> the system behave abnormally due to incorrect resource assignment. >>>> >>>> So enhance the ACPI resource parsing interfaces to ignore ACPI resource >>>> descriptors with address/offset above 4G when running in 32-bit mode. >>>> >>>> With the fix applied, the behavior of the machine was restored to how >>>> 3.18.16 worked, i.e. the memory range that is over 4GB is ignored again, >>>> and lspci -vvxxx shows that everything is at the same memory window as >>>> they were with 3.18.16. >>>> >>>> Reported-and-Tested-by: Boszormenyi Zoltan >>>> Fixes: 593669c2ac0f ("x86/PCI/ACPI: Use common ACPI resource >>>> interfaces to simplify implementation") >>>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu >>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.0 >>>> --- >>>> drivers/acpi/resource.c | 24 +++++++++++++++--------- >>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/resource.c b/drivers/acpi/resource.c >>>> index 10561ce16ed1..e8d281739cbc 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/resource.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/resource.c >>>> @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct resource_win >>>> *win, >>>> u8 iodec = attr->granularity == 0xfff ? ACPI_DECODE_10 : >>>> ACPI_DECODE_16; >>>> bool wp = addr->info.mem.write_protect; >>>> u64 len = attr->address_length; >>>> + u64 start, end, offset = 0; >>>> struct resource *res = &win->res; >>>> >>>> /* >>>> @@ -205,9 +206,6 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct resource_win >>>> *win, >>>> pr_debug("ACPI: Invalid address space min_addr_fix %d, >>>> max_addr_fix %d, len %llx\n", >>>> addr->min_address_fixed, addr->max_address_fixed, len); >>>> >>>> - res->start = attr->minimum; >>>> - res->end = attr->maximum; >>>> - >>>> /* >>>> * For bridges that translate addresses across the bridge, >>>> * translation_offset is the offset that must be added to the >>>> @@ -215,12 +213,22 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct >>>> resource_win *win, >>>> * primary side. Non-bridge devices must list 0 for all Address >>>> * Translation offset bits. >>>> */ >>>> - if (addr->producer_consumer == ACPI_PRODUCER) { >>>> - res->start += attr->translation_offset; >>>> - res->end += attr->translation_offset; >>>> - } else if (attr->translation_offset) { >>>> + if (addr->producer_consumer == ACPI_PRODUCER) >>>> + offset = attr->translation_offset; >>>> + else if (attr->translation_offset) >>>> pr_debug("ACPI: translation_offset(%lld) is invalid for >>>> non-bridge device.\n", >>>> attr->translation_offset); >>>> + start = attr->minimum + offset; >>>> + end = attr->maximum + offset; >>> >>> I still see the issue for this area, I mean ACPI_IO_RANGE. You are >>> adding translation offset to attr->minimum, build resource structure >>> which is then passed to acpi_dev_ioresource_flags and compared against >>> 0x10003. It causes some IO ranges to be ignored. >>> >> >> Kindly reminder, any comments? >> >> Tomasz > Hi Tomasz, > Thanks for reporting this issue! Could you please help to > test the attached patch? I was not able to apply your patch directly but that part: - if (res->end >= 0x10003) + if (res->end - offset >= 0x10003) res->flags |= IORESOURCE_DISABLED | IORESOURCE_UNSET; definitely helps. Thanks! Tomasz -- 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/