linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.11 102/128] ACPI / EC: Avoid race condition related to advance

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]

Message-Id: <1406195177-8656-103-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:45:51 +0100
From:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.11 102/128] ACPI / EC: Avoid race condition related to advance_transaction()

3.11.10.14 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>

commit 66b42b78bc1e816f92b662e8888c89195e4199e1 upstream.

The advance_transaction() will be invoked from the IRQ context GPE handler
and the task context ec_poll(). The handling of this function is locked so
that the EC state machine are ensured to be advanced sequentially.

But there is a problem. Before invoking advance_transaction(), EC_SC(R) is
read. Then for advance_transaction(), there could be race condition around
the lock from both contexts. The first one reading the register could fail
this race and when it passes the stale register value to the state machine
advancement code, the hardware condition is totally different from when
the register is read. And the hardware accesses determined from the wrong
hardware status can break the EC state machine. And there could be cases
that the functionalities of the platform firmware are seriously affected.
For example:
 1. When 2 EC_DATA(W) writes compete the IBF=0, the 2nd EC_DATA(W) write may
    be invalid due to IBF=1 after the 1st EC_DATA(W) write. Then the
    hardware will either refuse to respond a next EC_SC(W) write of the next
    command or discard the current WR_EC command when it receives a EC_SC(W)
    write of the next command.
 2. When 1 EC_SC(W) write and 1 EC_DATA(W) write compete the IBF=0, the
    EC_DATA(W) write may be invalid due to IBF=1 after the EC_SC(W) write.
    The next EC_DATA(R) could never be responded by the hardware. This is
    the root cause of the reported issue.

Fix this issue by moving the EC_SC(R) access into the lock so that we can
ensure that the state machine is advanced consistently.

Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70891
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63931
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59911
Reported-and-tested-by: Gareth Williams <gareth@...ethwilliams.me.uk>
Reported-and-tested-by: Hans de Goede <jwrdegoede@...oraproject.org>
Reported-by: Barton Xu <tank.xuhan@...il.com>
Tested-by: Steffen Weber <steffen.weber@...il.com>
Tested-by: Arthur Chen <axchen@...dia.com>
Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
[ luis: backported to 3.11: adjusted context ]
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/ec.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/ec.c b/drivers/acpi/ec.c
index 3ed713698d3d..769d5a757bd1 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/ec.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/ec.c
@@ -175,12 +175,15 @@ static void start_transaction(struct acpi_ec *ec)
 	acpi_ec_write_cmd(ec, ec->curr->command);
 }
 
-static void advance_transaction(struct acpi_ec *ec, u8 status)
+static void advance_transaction(struct acpi_ec *ec)
 {
 	unsigned long flags;
 	struct transaction *t;
+	u8 status;
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&ec->lock, flags);
+	pr_debug("===== %s =====\n", in_interrupt() ? "IRQ" : "TASK");
+	status = acpi_ec_read_status(ec);
 	t = ec->curr;
 	if (!t)
 		goto unlock;
@@ -243,7 +246,7 @@ static int ec_poll(struct acpi_ec *ec)
 						msecs_to_jiffies(1)))
 					return 0;
 			}
-			advance_transaction(ec, acpi_ec_read_status(ec));
+			advance_transaction(ec);
 		} while (time_before(jiffies, delay));
 		pr_debug(PREFIX "controller reset, restart transaction\n");
 		spin_lock_irqsave(&ec->lock, flags);
@@ -662,11 +665,8 @@ static u32 acpi_ec_gpe_handler(acpi_handle gpe_device,
 	u32 gpe_number, void *data)
 {
 	struct acpi_ec *ec = data;
-	u8 status = acpi_ec_read_status(ec);
-
-	pr_debug(PREFIX "~~~> interrupt, status:0x%02x\n", status);
 
-	advance_transaction(ec, status);
+	advance_transaction(ec);
 	if (ec_transaction_done(ec) &&
 	    (acpi_ec_read_status(ec) & ACPI_EC_FLAG_IBF) == 0) {
 		wake_up(&ec->wait);
-- 
1.9.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/