lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 7/7] mtrr, mm, x86: Enhance MTRR checks for KVA huge page mapping
From
Date
On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 23:42 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 02:38:46PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > MTRRs disabled is not an error case as it could be a normal
> > configuration on some platforms / BIOS setups.
>
> Normal how? PAT-only systems? Examples please...

BIOS initializes and enables MTRRs at POST. While the most (if not all)
BIOSes do it today, I do not think the x86 arch requires BIOS to enable
them.

Here is a quote from Intel SDM:
===
11.11.5 MTRR Initialization

On a hardware reset, the P6 and more recent processors clear the valid
flags in variable-range MTRRs and clear the E flag in the
IA32_MTRR_DEF_TYPE MSR to disable all MTRRs. All other bits in the MTRRs
are undefined.

Prior to initializing the MTRRs, software (normally the system BIOS)
must initialize all fixed-range and variablerange MTRR register fields
to 0. Software can then initialize the MTRRs according to known types of
memory, including memory on devices that it auto-configures.
Initialization is expected to occur prior to booting the operating
system.
===

> > I clarified it in the above comment that uniform is set for any return
> > value.
>
> Hell no!
>
> u8 mtrr_type_lookup(u64 start, u64 end, u8 *uniform)
> {
>
> ...
>
> *uniform = 1;
>
> if (!mtrr_state_set)
> return MTRR_TYPE_INVALID;
>
> if (!(mtrr_state.enabled & MTRR_STATE_MTRR_ENABLED))
> return MTRR_TYPE_INVALID;
>
>
> This is wrong and the fact that I still need to persuade you about it
> says a lot.
>
> If you want to be able to state that a type is uniform even if MTRRs are
> disabled, you need to define another retval which means exactly that.

There may not be any type conflict with MTRR_TYPE_INVALID.

> Or add an inline function called mtrr_enabled() and call it in the
> mtrr_type_lookup() callers.
>
> Or whatever.
>
> I don't want any confusing states with two return types and people
> having to figure out what it exactly means and digging into the code
> and scratching heads WTF is that supposed to mean.

I will change the caller to check MTRR_TYPE_INVALID, and treat it as a
uniform case.

Thanks,
-Toshi





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-12 01:01    [W:0.075 / U:10.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site