[SLOF] [PATCH] pci-phb: Fix stack underflow in phb-pci-walk-bridge
thuth at redhat.com
Wed Oct 12 02:31:38 AEDT 2016
On 10.10.2016 05:32, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 23/09/16 04:02, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The sequence "my-space pci-htype@ pci-out" in phb-pci-walk-bridge
>> is bugged: pci-htype@ already consumes the my-space item from the
>> stack, only leaving one item for pci-out. But pci-out needs two
>> input items on the stack, the PCI address and a character item.
>> So this rather should be "my-space dup pci-htype@ pci-out" instead.
>> However, using the output of pci-htype@ as input character for
>> pci-out also does not make much sense, since this is likely an
>> unprintable character. So let's simply use a question mark here
>> instead to indicate that we did not recognize the type of the
>> PCI device.
>> Buglink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377083
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth at redhat.com>
>> board-qemu/slof/pci-phb.fs | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> Thanks, applied.
> I got a question though - why did you add buglink here? It says that adding
> 2 bridges crashes SLOF.
> 1) it is not clear at all why PCI header type is not 0 or 1
> 2) how this patch fixes it
> 3) how "pci: Fix secondary and subordinate PCI bus enumeration with
> board-qemu" fixes it if this patch does not fix it
Have a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377083#c5 :
There are actually two problems discovered by the bug. First, SLOF
crashes when using multiple pci-bridges. This patch here just fixes the
crash, but SLOF is then still unable to the PCI devices. That second
problem is fixed by my other patch ("pci: Fix secondary and subordinate
PCI bus enumeration with board-qemu").
Sorry for not writing this more clearly in the commit message here - but
this patch was done right after I figure out how to fix the crash, but I
did not fully figure out the other problem at that point in time yet. If
you think that the Buglink here is too confusing, please simply remove
it - since the crash of SLOF should be fixed (or rather "hidden") by the
other patch, too.
More information about the SLOF