linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] ACPICA: Hardware: Add optimized access bit width support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <57472A95.5050100@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 May 2016 12:55:49 -0400
From:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc:	ian.jackson@...citrix.com, zetalog@...il.com, len.brown@...el.com,
	lv.zheng@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	robert.moore@...el.com, xen-devel@...ts.xen.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] ACPICA: Hardware: Add optimized access bit width
 support

On 05/26/2016 12:26 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com> 05/25/16 9:17 PM >>>
>> On 05/05/2016 12:58 AM, Lv Zheng wrote:
>>> +static u8
>>> +acpi_hw_get_access_bit_width(struct acpi_generic_address *reg, u8 max_bit_width)
>>> +{
>>> +    u64 address;
>>> +
>>> +    if (!reg->access_width) {
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * Detect old register descriptors where only the bit_width field
>>> +         * makes senses. The target address is copied to handle possible
>>> +         * alignment issues.
>>> +         */
>>> +        ACPI_MOVE_64_TO_64(&address, &reg->address);
>>> +        if (!reg->bit_offset && reg->bit_width &&
>>> +            ACPI_IS_POWER_OF_TWO(reg->bit_width) &&
>>> +            ACPI_IS_ALIGNED(reg->bit_width, 8) &&
>>> +            ACPI_IS_ALIGNED(address, reg->bit_width)) {
>>> +            return (reg->bit_width);
>>> +        } else {
>>> +            if (reg->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO) {
>>> +                return (32);
>> This (together with "... Add access_width/bit_offset support in
>> acpi_hw_write") breaks Xen guests using older QEMU which doesn't support
>> 4-byte IO accesses.
>>
>> Why not return "reg->bit_width?:max_bit_width" ? This will preserve
>> original behavior.
> Did you figure out why we get here in the first place, instead of taking the
> first "return"? I.e. isn't the issue the apparently wrong use of the second
> ACPI_IS_ALIGNED() above? Afaict it ought to be
> ACPI_IS_ALIGNED(address, reg->bit_width / 8)...

We are trying to access address 0x...b004 (PM1a control) so yes, fixing
alignment check would probably resolve the problem that we are seeing now.

However, for compatibility purposes we may consider not doing any checks
and simply return bit_width if access_width is not available.

-boris