[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h51v9fFrJRuaFpSn7J2UEHndEj0f3zpmw=RvgsvAhtvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 16:54:43 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Tong Zhang <ztong0001@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: acpi_get_devices() crash when acpi_disabled==true (was [PATCH v2]
drm/privacy-screen: honor acpi=off in detect_thinkpad_privacy_screen)
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:47 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> On 1/23/22 10:10, Tong Zhang wrote:
> > when acpi=off is provided in bootarg, kernel crash with
> >
> > [ 1.252739] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000018
> > [ 1.258308] Call Trace:
> > [ 1.258490] ? acpi_walk_namespace+0x147/0x147
> > [ 1.258770] acpi_get_devices+0xe4/0x137
> > [ 1.258921] ? drm_core_init+0xc0/0xc0 [drm]
> > [ 1.259108] detect_thinkpad_privacy_screen+0x5e/0xa8 [drm]
> > [ 1.259337] drm_privacy_screen_lookup_init+0xe/0xe85 [drm]
> >
> > The reason is that acpi_walk_namespace expects acpi related stuff
> > initialized but in fact it wouldn't when acpi is set to off. In this case
> > we should honor acpi=off in detect_thinkpad_privacy_screen().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tong Zhang <ztong0001@...il.com>
>
> Thank you for catching this and thank you for your patch. I was about to merge
> this, but then I realized that this might not be the best way to fix this.
>
> A quick grep shows 10 acpi_get_devices() calls outside of drivers/acpi,
> and at a first glance about half of those are missing an acpi_disabled
> check. IMHO it would be better to simply add an acpi_disabled check to
> acpi_get_devices() itself.
>
> Rafael, do you agree ?
Yes, I do.
> Note the just added chrome privacy-screen check uses
> acpi_dev_present(), this is also used in about 10 places outside
> of drivers/acpi and AFAIK none of those do an acpi_disabled check.
>
> acpi_dev_present() uses bus_find_device(&acpi_bus_type, ...)
> but the acpi_bus_type does not get registered when acpi_disabled
> is set. In the end this is fine though since bus_find_device
> checks for the bus not being registered and then just returns
> NULL.
Right.
> > ---
> > v2: fix typo in previous commit -- my keyboard is eating letters
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c
> > index a2cafb294ca6..e7aa74ad0b24 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_privacy_screen_x86.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ static bool __init detect_thinkpad_privacy_screen(void)
> > unsigned long long output;
> > acpi_status status;
> >
> > + if (acpi_disabled)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > /* Get embedded-controller handle */
> > status = acpi_get_devices("PNP0C09", acpi_set_handle, NULL, &ec_handle);
> > if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !ec_handle)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists