linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: Put ACPI table after using it

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:15:14 +0800
From:   Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:     Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@....com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: Put ACPI table after using it

On 2020/7/31 10:41, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> Hi Hanjun,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply.
> 
> Thank you for the patch and the explanation. This seems to have been
> broken since the first version of KFD in 2014. See one suggestion inline.
> 
> Am 2020-07-22 um 5:48 a.m. schrieb Hanjun Guo:
>> The acpi_get_table() should be coupled with acpi_put_table() if
>> the mapped table is not used at runtime to release the table
>> mapping.
>>
>> In kfd_create_crat_image_acpi(), crat_table is copied to pcrat_image,
>> and in kfd_create_vcrat_image_cpu(), the acpi_table is only used to
>> get the OEM info, so those table mappings need to be release after
>> using it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_crat.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_crat.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_crat.c
>> index 1009a3b..d378e61 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_crat.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_crat.c
>> @@ -756,6 +756,7 @@ int kfd_create_crat_image_acpi(void **crat_image, size_t *size)
>>   	struct acpi_table_header *crat_table;
>>   	acpi_status status;
>>   	void *pcrat_image;
>> +	int rc = 0;
>>   
>>   	if (!crat_image)
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -776,17 +777,21 @@ int kfd_create_crat_image_acpi(void **crat_image, size_t *size)
>>   
>>   	if (ignore_crat) {
>>   		pr_info("CRAT table disabled by module option\n");
> 
> We should probably move this check to before we get the CRAT table.
> There is not point getting and putting it if we're going to ignore it
> anyway.
> 
> Do you want to send an updated patch with that change? Or maybe do it as
> a 2-patch series?

I will do it as 2-patch series and send a updated patch set.

Thanks
Hanjun