linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Relax BASE protocol sanity checks on protocol list

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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Jun 2022 14:31:48 +0100
From:   Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To:     Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Liang Chen <cl@...k-chips.com>,
        Kever Yang <kever.yang@...k-chips.com>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
        Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@...il.com>,
        Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@...aro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Relax BASE protocol sanity checks on
 protocol list

On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Michael Riesch wrote:
> Hi Cristian,
> 
Hi Michael,

> On 5/23/22 19:15, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > Even though malformed replies from firmware must be treated carefully to
> > avoid memory corruption Kernel side, some out-of-spec SCMI replies can
> > be tolerated to avoid breaking existing deployed system, as long as they
> > won't cause memory issues.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@...il.com>
> > Cc: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@...aro.org>
> > Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
> 
> Thanks a lot, without this fix the Mali G52 GPU won't probe on my RK3568
> EVB1 in vanilla v5.19-rc1.
> 

Yes, the break was reported on -next and today it appeared in 5.19-rc1.
A proper FW fix is also up for review by Etienne but in the meantime
this tries to limit damages relaxing a bit the checks.

> I guess this patch should have a Fixes: tag, right?
> 

It has not a Fixes tag because the issue was introduced in 5.19-rc1 and the
fix will go in with the next round of v5.19 fixes by Sudeep (AFAIU) so it
will be solved within the v5.19 cycle and I thought the Fixes tag was
not needed in this case (I could be wrong...)

> Would be great to have this in v5.19. AFAIC:
> 
> Acked-by: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>

Thanks for testing it.
Cristian