linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: scan: Avoid enumerating devices with clearly invalid

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: <CAJZ5v0j46222cPihhkCo2Znum7f4A12sBve27Yeevv2LPdstPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:06:13 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, 
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"salil.mehta@...wei.com" <salil.mehta@...wei.com>, 
	"jonathan.cameron@...wei.com" <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: scan: Avoid enumerating devices with clearly
 invalid _STA values

On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 6:17 AM Zhang, Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 18:56 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > The return value of _STA with the "present" bit unset and the
> > "enabled"
> > bit set is clearly invalid as per the ACPI specification, Section
> > 6.3.7
> > "_STA (Device Status)", so make the ACPI device enumeration code
> > disregard devices with such _STA return values.
> >
> > Also, because this implies that status.enabled will only be set if
> > status.present is set too, acpi_device_is_enabled() can be modified
> > to simply return the value of the former.
> >
> > Link:
> > https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/06_Device_Configuration.html#sta-device-status
> > Link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/88179311a503493099028c12ca37d430@huawei.com/
> > Suggested-by: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/bus.c  |   11 +++++++++++
> >  drivers/acpi/scan.c |    2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > @@ -112,6 +112,17 @@ int acpi_bus_get_status(struct acpi_devi
> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >                 return -ENODEV;
> >
> > +       if (!device->status.present && device->status.enabled) {
> > +               pr_info(FW_BUG "Device [%s] status [%08x]: not
> > present and enabled\n",
> > +                       device->pnp.bus_id, (u32)sta);
> > +               device->status.enabled = 0;
> > +               /*
> > +                * The status is clearly invalid, so clear the
> > enabled bit as
> > +                * well to avoid attempting to use the device.
> > +                */
>
> seems that this comment is for the line above?

No, I meant "functional" and wrote "enabled".  Not sure why really.

> > +               device->status.functional = 0;
> > +       }
> > +
> >         acpi_set_device_status(device, sta);
> >
> >         if (device->status.functional && !device->status.present) {
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > @@ -1962,7 +1962,7 @@ bool acpi_device_is_present(const struct
> >
> >  bool acpi_device_is_enabled(const struct acpi_device *adev)
> >  {
> > -       return adev->status.present && adev->status.enabled;
> > +       return adev->status.enabled;
> >  }
> >
> >  static bool acpi_scan_handler_matching(struct acpi_scan_handler
> > *handler,
> >
> >
> >
> >
>