[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e8593eae-40b8-bc9a-78db-529d28d2be88@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:10:42 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: George Kennedy <george.kennedy@...cle.com>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@...ica.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI: fix acpi table use after free
>>> Memory gets allocated and used in a different order, which seems to have
>>> exposed (yet another) latent BUG.
>>
>> Well, you can call it that, or you can say that things worked under
>> certain assumptions regarding the memory allocation order which are
>> not met any more.
>>
>>> The same could be reproduced via zone shuffling with a little luck.
>>
>> But nobody does that in practice.
>>
Dan will most certainly object. And I don't know what makes you speak in
absolute words here.
>> This would be relatively straightforward to address if ACPICA was not
>> involved in it, but unfortunately that's not the case.
>>
>> Changing this part of ACPICA is risky, because such changes may affect
>> other OSes using it, so that requires some serious consideration.
>> Alternatively, the previous memory allocation order in Linux could be
>> restored.
>
> Of course, long-term this needs to be addressed in the ACPI
> initialization code, because it clearly is not robust enough, but in
> the meantime there's practical breakage observable in the field, so
> what can be done about that?
*joke* enable zone shuffling.
No seriously, fix the latent BUG. What again is problematic about
excluding these pages from the page allcoator, for example, via
memblock_reserve()?
@Mike?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists