linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI: fix acpi table use after free

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: <CAJZ5v0iump7nVKfyu7S23-n=gQFx5d2MKejrnT6yFak7L9V11g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 16:22:37 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        George Kennedy <george.kennedy@...cle.com>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...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>,
        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

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:50 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 8:25 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 09:14:37PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 15, 2021 5:19:29 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 8:00 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 04:36:31PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:47 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is some care that should be taken to make sure we get the order
> > > > > > > > right, but I don't see a fundamental issue here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Me neither.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, Rafael's concern is about changing the parts of
> > > > > > > > ACPICA that should be OS agnostic, so I think we just need another place to
> > > > > > > > call memblock_reserve() rather than acpi_tb_install_table_with_override().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Something like this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is also the problem that memblock_reserve() needs to be called
> > > > > > for all of the tables early enough, which will require some reordering
> > > > > > of the early init code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since the reservation should be done early in x86::setup_arch() (and
> > > > > > > > probably in arm64::setup_arch()) we might just have a function that parses
> > > > > > > > table headers and reserves them, similarly to how we parse the tables
> > > > > > > > during KASLR setup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've looked at it a bit more and we do something like the patch below that
> > > > > nearly duplicates acpi_tb_parse_root_table() which is not very nice.
> > > >
> > > > It looks to me that the code need not be duplicated (see below).
> > > >
> > > > > Besides, reserving ACPI tables early and then calling acpi_table_init()
> > > > > (and acpi_tb_parse_root_table() again would mean doing the dance with
> > > > > early_memremap() twice for no good reason.
> > > >
> > > > That'd be simply inefficient which is kind of acceptable to me to start with.
> > > >
> > > > And I changing the ACPICA code can be avoided at least initially, it
> > > > by itself would be a good enough reason.
> > > >
> > > > > I believe the most effective way to deal with this would be to have a
> > > > > function that does parsing, reservation and installs the tables supplied by
> > > > > the firmware which can be called really early and then another function
> > > > > that overrides tables if needed a some later point.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that this should be the direction to go into.
> > >
> > > So maybe something like the patch below?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if acpi_boot_table_prepare() gets called early enough, though.
> >
> > To be 100% safe it should be called before e820__memblock_setup().
>
> OK

Well, that said, reserve_bios_regions() doesn't seem to have concerns
like this and I'm not sure why ACPI tables should be reserved before
this runs.  That applies to efi_reserve_boot_services() too.

I can put the new call before e820__memblock_alloc_reserved_mpc_new(),
but I'm not sure why to put it before efi_reserve_boot_services(),
say?