linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] ACPI, PCI, IRQ: assign ISA IRQ directly during early boot stages

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: <20161021140759.GA877@localhost>
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:07:59 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        ravikanth.nalla@....com, linux@...nbow-software.org,
        timur@...eaurora.org, cov@...eaurora.org, jcm@...hat.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        agross@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, wim@....tudelft.nl,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] ACPI, PCI, IRQ: assign ISA IRQ directly during
 early boot stages

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:39:30PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 06:21:02PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > The penalty determination of ISA IRQ goes through 4 paths.
> > 1. assign PCI_USING during power up via acpi_irq_penalty_init.
> > 2. update the penalty with acpi_penalize_isa_irq function based on the
> > active parameter.
> > 3. kernel command line penalty update via acpi_irq_penalty_update function.
> > 4. increment the penalty as USING right after the IRQ is assign to PCI.
> > 
> > acpi_penalize_isa_irq and acpi_irq_penalty_update functions get called
> > before the ACPI subsystem is started.
> > 
> > These API need to bypass the acpi_irq_get_penalty function.
> 
> I don't mind this patch, but the changelog doesn't tell me what's
> broken and why we need this fix.  Apparently acpi_irq_get_penalty()
> doesn't work before ACPI is initialized, but I don't see *why* it
> wouldn't work.
> 
> However, I see one bug it *does* fix: we do not store the SCI penalty
> in the acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] table because acpi_isa_irq_penalty[]
> only holds ISA IRQ penalties, and there's no guarantee that the SCI is
> an ISA IRQ.  But prior to this patch, we added in the SCI penalty to
> the acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] entry when the SCI was an ISA IRQ, which
> makes acpi_irq_get_penalty() return the wrong thing.  Consider:
> 
>   Initially     acpi_isa_irq_penalty[9] = 0.
>   Assume        sci_interrupt = 9.
>   Then          acpi_irq_get_penalty(9) returns X.
>   If we call    acpi_penalize_isa_irq(9, 1),
>   it sets       acpi_isa_irq_penalty[9] = X,
>   and now       acpi_irq_get_penalty(9) returns X + X.

Oops, I forgot the penalty we *intended* to add with
acpi_penalize_isa_irq().  It's really like this, where X is the SCI
penalty and Y is the part added by acpi_penalize_isa_irq():

  Initially     acpi_isa_irq_penalty[9] = 0.
  Assume        sci_interrupt = 9.
  Then          acpi_irq_get_penalty(9) returns X.
  If we call    acpi_penalize_isa_irq(9, 1),
  it sets       acpi_isa_irq_penalty[9] = X + Y,
  and now       acpi_irq_get_penalty(9) returns X + X + Y.

At the end, acpi_irq_get_penalty(9) *should* return X + Y, but instead
it returns X + X + Y, i.e., the SCI penalty is included twice.