linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ACPI fixes for v6.9-rc6

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: <CAJZ5v0j7Do94XvUQrLgA_mFFyxdeb2RO08JwUzL0_QErOOrrAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 21:45:24 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Jarred White <jarredwhite@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ACPI fixes for v6.9-rc6

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 9:18 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 11:58, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > And maybe this time, it's not a buggy mess?
>
> Actually, even with MASK_VAL() fixed, I think it's *STILL* a buggy mess.
>
> Why? Beuse the *uses* of MASK_VAL() seem entirely bogus.
>
> In particular, we have this in cpc_write():
>
>         if (reg->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY)
>                 val = MASK_VAL(reg, val);
>
>         switch (size) {
>         case 8:
>                 writeb_relaxed(val, vaddr);
>                 break;
>         case 16:
>                 writew_relaxed(val, vaddr);
>                 break;
>         ...
>
> and I strongly suspect that it needs to update the 'vaddr' too. Something like
>
>         if (reg->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY) {
>                 val = MASK_VAL(reg, val);
>   #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
>                 vaddr += reg->bit_offset >> 3;
>                 if (reg->bit_offset & 7)
>                         return -EFAULT;
>   #else
>                 /* Fixme if we ever care */
>                 if (reg->bit_offset)
>                         return -EFAULT;
>   #endif
>         }
>
> *might* be changing this in the right direction, but it's unclear and
> I neither know that CPC rules, nor did I think _that_ much about it.

This is a very nice catch, thank you!

> Anyway, the take-away should be that all this code is entirely broken
> and somebody didn't think enough about it.
>
> It's possible that that whole cpc_write() ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY
> case should be done as a 64-bit "read-mask-write" sequence.
>
> Possibly with "reg->bit_offset == 0" and the 8/16/32/64-bit cases as a
> special case for "just do the write".
>
> Or, maybe writes with a non-zero bit offset shouldn't be allowed at
> all, and there are CPC rules that aren't checked. I don't know. I only
> know that the current code is seriously broken.

In any case, this needs to be taken care of (Jared?).

Thanks,
Rafael