linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] platform/x86/amd/pmf: Do not use readl() for policy buffer access

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]

Message-ID: <9cdc844a-ba39-4215-b21e-1e1629edc549@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:41:19 +0100
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com,
 Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
 sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] platform/x86/amd/pmf: Do not use readl() for
 policy buffer access

Am 27.02.24 um 13:59 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen:

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Armin Wolf wrote:
>
>> The policy buffer is allocated using normal memory allocation
>> functions, so readl() should not be used on it.
>>
>> Use get_unaligned_le32() instead.
>>
>> Compile-tested only.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
>> ---
>>   drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c | 5 +++--
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c
>> index 16973bebf55f..3220b6580270 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/debugfs.h>
>>   #include <linux/tee_drv.h>
>>   #include <linux/uuid.h>
>> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
>>   #include "pmf.h"
>>
>>   #define MAX_TEE_PARAM	4
>> @@ -249,8 +250,8 @@ static int amd_pmf_start_policy_engine(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev)
>>   	u32 cookie, length;
>>   	int res;
>>
>> -	cookie = readl(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_OFFSET);
>> -	length = readl(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_LEN);
>> +	cookie = get_unaligned_le32(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_OFFSET);
>> +	length = get_unaligned_le32(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_LEN);
> I don't understand you need _unaligned_ here, the offsets should be dword
> aligned, no?
>
> #define POLICY_COOKIE_OFFSET      0x10
> #define POLICY_COOKIE_LEN         0x14
>
Hi,

you are right about this.

However i just noticed that the driver does not validate that the policy buffer is big enough
before accessing the data.

I will prepare a separate patch series to address this.

Thanks,
Armin Wolf