linux-kernel - Re: [lkp-robot] [platform/x86] b925ff7dcd: BUG:unable_to_handle

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:56:07 +1030
From:   Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@...t42.net>
To:     Micha?? K??pie?? <kernel@...pniu.pl>
Cc:     kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [platform/x86]  b925ff7dcd:
 BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:14:40AM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:40:15AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > FYI, we noticed the following commit:
> > > 
> > > commit: b925ff7dcd1fc45b86baaebd3442f8b484123716 ("platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: only register backlight device if FUJ02B1 is present")
> > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Micha-K-pie/fujitsu-laptop-renames-and-cleanups/20170209-030748
> > > base: git://git.infradead.org/users/dvhart/linux-platform-drivers-x86.git for-next
> > > 
> > > in testcase: boot
> > > 
> > > on test machine: qemu-system-i386 -enable-kvm -cpu Haswell,+smep,+smap -m 360M
> > > 
> > > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace):
> > > :
> > > [    4.656202] fujitsu_laptop: call_fext_func: FUNC interface is not present
> > > [    4.657478] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000008
> > > [    4.658433] IP: fujitsu_init+0x137/0x1b7
> > > [    4.659208] *pdpt = 0000000000000000 *pde = f000ff53f000ff53 
> > > :
> :
> > If ACPI_FUJITSU_LAPTOP_HID
> 
> I think you meant ACPI_FUJITSU_BL_HID.

I did.  Darn cut and paste.

> > is not present then presumedly the
> > 
> >   acpi_bus_register_driver(&acpi_fujitsu_bl_driver)
> > 
> > call in fujitsu_init() will fail and nothing further would happen. 
> > Therefore this HID must be in the system.
> 
> Not really.  acpi_bus_register_driver() is just a wrapper around
> driver_register().
> In other words, whether or not a given HID is present in the firmware does
> not have any influence on the return code of that function.

Yes, I saw that much but erroneously assumed there was an indication of
device presence in the return value.  Thanks for putting me right on this.

> > However, the acpi_fujitsu_bl_add() callback wouldn't necessarily get run by
> > acpi_bus_register_driver(), would it?  I'm not too familiar with the lower
> > level ACPI functions but a quick trip through the source suggested that the
> > add callback isn't called via acpi_bus_register_driver().  This would mean
> > that that fujitsu_bl->bl_device would not yet be initialised when referenced
> > within fujitsu_init() at line 1271 or 1273.  If this were the case then I
> > see two options:
> > 
> >  1) Don't move the backlight registration out of fujitsu_init().
> > 
> >  2) Move the remaining backlight code (lines 1268-1274) into
> >     acpi_fujitsu_bl_add().
> > 
> > Item 1 effectively amounts to dropping this commit.  I'm not sure option 2
> > is workable because of the code's reliance on FUJ02E3; is that guaranteed to
> > be useable by the time acpi_fujitsu_bl_add() is called?
> 
> To keep things simple, I think we should drop this particular patch for
> now.  Darren, Andy, could you skip it when applying this series?
> Patches 9 and 10 do not rely on this one being applied.  Thanks and
> sorry for the trouble.  v2 of my fujitsu_init() cleanup series will fix
> this properly.

We could just add a test for NULL on fujitsu_bl->bl_device in
fujitsu_init(), couldn't we?  However, if you are planning to make further
structural changes to fujitsu_init() in the upcoming patch series then I
agree that messing around with this now is kind of pointless.  In this case,
skipping this single patch is fine.

> > If the ACPI bus probed/added asynchronously I guess
> > there could be a race whereby acpi_fujitsu_bl_add() may or may not have
> > completed by the time fujitsu_init() referenced fujitsu_bl->bl_device.  That
> > doesn't seem right to me though.
> 
> When acpi_bus_register_driver() is called, the .add callback is
> "synchronously" called for all ACPI devices handled by the registered
> driver that are yet unbound to any driver.

That's what I first thought would be the case, but I couldn't find how the
add method was called by register_driver().  I therefore thought it must be
triggered at some later stage (although an async mechanism seemed a bit out
there).  Clearly there's an indirect mechanism that I missed.

> So if FUJ02B1 is present,
> acpi_fujitsu_bl_add() is called and bl_device is allocated.  However, if
> that ACPI device is not present (like on Skylakes) and
> acpi_backlight=vendor, we get a NULL dereference.

Yes, that makes sense in light of the fact that acpi_bus_register_driver()
can cause acpi_fujitsu_bl_add() to be called.

Regards
  jonathan