>>> On 20.08.18 at 11:38, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2018/8/20 15:45, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 20.08.18 at 05:38, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm thinking about moving below piece of code earlier too, and I checked >>> pci_mmcfg_check_hostbridge() carefully, it's secure, what do you think >>> about that? >>> >>> mmio_ro_ranges = rangeset_new(NULL, "r/o mmio ranges", >>> RANGESETF_prettyprint_hex); >>> >> >> That's a reasonable thing to do, and is (as pointed out) a necessary >> prereq. But to be very clear - you'll also have to prove it's sufficient, >> and for that it doesn't suffice to consider pci_mmcfg_check_hostbridge() >> alone. > Not sure how to prove, I checked over acpi_mmcfg_init() carefully, > acpi_disabled and DMI info are used and they are initialized earlier > than acpi_dmar_init() call, I only found mmio_ro_ranges need to be moved.
But that's only half of it: Checking just acpi_mmcfg_init() is insufficient. You also need to check everything between the old and new call sites. And the result of this checking wants to be summarized (read: in a brief but nevertheless sufficient form) in the patch description. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
