[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <307694d7-2af3-9c74-6d12-3a2a73137606@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:52:17 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>,
Erik Schmauss <erik.schmauss@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.17 55/66] ACPICA: AML Parser: ignore dispatcher error
status during table load
On 7/27/2018 11:45 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 4.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Schmauss, Erik <erik.schmauss@...el.com>
>
> commit 73c2a01c52b657f4a0ead6c95f64c5279efbd000 upstream.
>
> The dispatcher and the executer process the parse nodes During table
> load. Error status from the evaluation confuses the AML parser. This
> results in the parser failing to complete parsing of the current
> scope op which becomes problematic. For the incorrect AML below, _ADR
> never gets created.
>
> definition_block(...)
> {
> Scope (\_SB)
> {
> Device (PCI0){...}
> Name (OBJ1, 0x0)
> OBJ1 = PCI0 + 5 // Results in an operand error.
> } // \_SB not closed
>
> // parser looks for \_SB._SB.PCI0, results in AE_NOT_FOUND error
> // Entire scope block gets skipped.
> Scope (\_SB.PCI0)
> {
> Name (_ADR, 0x0)
> }
> }
>
> Fix the above error by properly completing the initial \_SB scope
> after an error by clearing errors that occur during table load. In
> the above case, this means that OBJ1 = PIC0 + 5 is skipped.
>
> Fixes: 5088814a6e93 (ACPICA: AML parser: attempt to continue loading table after error)
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=200363
> Tested-by: Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>
> Signed-off-by: Erik Schmauss <erik.schmauss@...el.com>
> Cc: 4.17+ <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.17+
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Has this gone in already? If not, please hold on.
There is a fix on top of this that will go to Linus tomorrow:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10548059/
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpica/psloop.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/psloop.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/psloop.c
> @@ -497,6 +497,18 @@ acpi_status acpi_ps_parse_loop(struct ac
> status =
> acpi_ps_create_op(walk_state, aml_op_start, &op);
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> + /*
> + * ACPI_PARSE_MODULE_LEVEL means that we are loading a table by
> + * executing it as a control method. However, if we encounter
> + * an error while loading the table, we need to keep trying to
> + * load the table rather than aborting the table load. Set the
> + * status to AE_OK to proceed with the table load.
> + */
> + if ((walk_state->
> + parse_flags & ACPI_PARSE_MODULE_LEVEL)
> + && status == AE_ALREADY_EXISTS) {
> + status = AE_OK;
> + }
> if (status == AE_CTRL_PARSE_CONTINUE) {
> continue;
> }
> @@ -694,6 +706,20 @@ acpi_status acpi_ps_parse_loop(struct ac
> acpi_ps_next_parse_state(walk_state, op, status);
> if (status == AE_CTRL_PENDING) {
> status = AE_OK;
> + } else
> + if ((walk_state->
> + parse_flags & ACPI_PARSE_MODULE_LEVEL)
> + && ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> + /*
> + * ACPI_PARSE_MODULE_LEVEL means that we are loading a table by
> + * executing it as a control method. However, if we encounter
> + * an error while loading the table, we need to keep trying to
> + * load the table rather than aborting the table load. Set the
> + * status to AE_OK to proceed with the table load. If we get a
> + * failure at this point, it means that the dispatcher got an
> + * error while processing Op (most likely an AML operand error.
> + */
> + status = AE_OK;
> }
> }
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists