[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170825100456.n236w3jebteokfd6@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:04:56 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Improve microcode patches saving flow
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Avoid potentially dereferencing a NULL pointer when saving a microcode
patch for early loading on the application processors.
While at it, drop the IS_ERR() checking in favor of simpler, NULL-ptr
checks which are sufficient and rename __alloc_microcode_buf() to
memdup_patch() to more precisely denote what it does.
No functionality change.
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index 59edbe9d4ccb..8f7a9bbad514 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -146,18 +146,18 @@ static bool microcode_matches(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
return false;
}
-static struct ucode_patch *__alloc_microcode_buf(void *data, unsigned int size)
+static struct ucode_patch *memdup_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
{
struct ucode_patch *p;
p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!p)
- return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+ return NULL;
p->data = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!p->data) {
kfree(p);
- return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+ return NULL;
}
return p;
@@ -183,8 +183,8 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
if (mc_hdr->rev <= mc_saved_hdr->rev)
continue;
- p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
- if (IS_ERR(p))
+ p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+ if (!p)
pr_err("Error allocating buffer %p\n", data);
else
list_replace(&iter->plist, &p->plist);
@@ -196,24 +196,25 @@ static void save_microcode_patch(void *data, unsigned int size)
* newly found.
*/
if (!prev_found) {
- p = __alloc_microcode_buf(data, size);
- if (IS_ERR(p))
+ p = memdup_patch(data, size);
+ if (!p)
pr_err("Error allocating buffer for %p\n", data);
else
list_add_tail(&p->plist, µcode_cache);
}
+ if (!p)
+ return;
+
/*
* Save for early loading. On 32-bit, that needs to be a physical
* address as the APs are running from physical addresses, before
* paging has been enabled.
*/
- if (p) {
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
- intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
- else
- intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
- }
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32))
+ intel_ucode_patch = (struct microcode_intel *)__pa_nodebug(p->data);
+ else
+ intel_ucode_patch = p->data;
}
static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)
--
2.13.0
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists