| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <678e2e3b-4c45-4c10-8af0-32e17c7b3bd4@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:01:07 +0800
From: Koba Ko <kobak@...dia.com>
To: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>, "mochs@...dia.com"
<mochs@...dia.com>, "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>, "lenb@...nel.org"
<lenb@...nel.org>, "erik.kaneda@...el.com" <erik.kaneda@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/prmt: find block with specific type
On 8/21/24 11:20, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Thu, 2024-08-01 at 09:48 +0800, KobaK wrote:
>> PRMT needs to find the correct type of block to
>> translate the PA-VA mapping for EFI runtime services.
>>
>> The issue arises because the PRMT is finding a block of type
>> EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY,
>> which is not appropriate for runtime services as described in Section
>> 2.2.2 (Runtime
>> Services) of the UEFI Specification [1]. Since the PRM handler is a
>> type of runtime
>> service, this causes an exception when the PRM handler is called.
>>
> Too many characters in one line.
> https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#the-canonical-patch-format
will fix this in the description.
>
>
>> [Firmware Bug]: Unable to handle paging request in EFI runtime
>> service
>> WARNING: CPU: 22 PID: 4330 at drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-
>> wrappers.c:341 __efi_queue_work+0x11c/0x170
>> Call trace:
>> __efi_queue_work+0x11c/0x170
>> efi_call_acpi_prm_handler+0x68/0xd0
>> acpi_platformrt_space_handler+0x198/0x258
>> acpi_ev_address_space_dispatch+0x144/0x388
>> acpi_ex_access_region+0x9c/0x118
>> acpi_ex_write_serial_bus+0xc4/0x218
>> acpi_ex_write_data_to_field+0x168/0x218
>> acpi_ex_store_object_to_node+0x1a8/0x258
>> acpi_ex_store+0xec/0x330
>> acpi_ex_opcode_1A_1T_1R+0x15c/0x618
>> acpi_ds_exec_end_op+0x274/0x548
>> acpi_ps_parse_loop+0x10c/0x6b8
>> acpi_ps_parse_aml+0x140/0x3b0
>> acpi_ps_execute_method+0x12c/0x2a0
>> acpi_ns_evaluate+0x210/0x310
>> acpi_evaluate_object+0x178/0x358
>> acpi_proc_write+0x1a8/0x8a0 [acpi_call]
>> proc_reg_write+0xcc/0x150
>> vfs_write+0xd8/0x380
>> ksys_write+0x70/0x120
>> __arm64_sys_write+0x24/0x48
>> invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0x80/0xf8
>> do_el0_svc+0x50/0x110
>> el0_svc+0x48/0x1d0
>> el0t_64_sync_handler+0x15c/0x178
>> el0t_64_sync+0x1a8/0x1b0
>>
>> Find a block with specific type to fix this.
>> prmt find a block with EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA for prm handler.
>> prmt find a block with EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE for prm context.
>> By using the correct memory types for runtime services,
>> we can ensure that the PRM handler and
>> its context are properly mapped in the virtual address space during
>> runtime,
>> preventing the paging request error.
> some general rules to follow when writing a changelog
> https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-tip.html 4.2.3. Changelog
will decorate this.
>
>> [1]
>> https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_10_Aug29.pdf
>>
>> Fixes: cefc7ca46235 ("ACPI: PRM: implement OperationRegion handler
>> for the PlatformRtMechanism subtype")
>> Signed-off-by: KobaK <kobak@...dia.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Matthew R. Ochs <mochs@...dia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/prmt.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> --
>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/prmt.c b/drivers/acpi/prmt.c
>> index c78453c74ef5..e2f0bdd81013 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/prmt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/prmt.c
>> @@ -72,17 +72,21 @@ struct prm_module_info {
>> struct prm_handler_info handlers[]
>> __counted_by(handler_count);
>> };
>>
>> -static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(u64 pa)
>> +static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(u64 pa, u32 type)
>> {
>> efi_memory_desc_t *md;
>> u64 pa_offset = pa & ~PAGE_MASK;
>> u64 page = pa & PAGE_MASK;
>>
>> for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) {
>> - if (md->phys_addr < pa && pa < md->phys_addr +
>> PAGE_SIZE * md->num_pages)
>> + if ((md->type == type) &&
>> + (md->phys_addr < pa && pa < md->phys_addr +
>> PAGE_SIZE * md->num_pages)) {
>> return pa_offset + md->virt_addr + page - md-
>>> phys_addr;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> + pr_err("PRM: Failed to find a block for pa: %lx type %u\n",
>> pa, type);
>> +
> If it is a pr_err, why not error out?
> or what is the proper handling for such failures?
>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -148,9 +152,12 @@ acpi_parse_prmt(union acpi_subtable_headers
>> *header, const unsigned long end)
>> th = &tm->handlers[cur_handler];
>>
>> guid_copy(&th->guid, (guid_t *)handler_info-
>>> handler_guid);
>> - th->handler_addr = (void
>> *)efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->handler_address);
>> - th->static_data_buffer_addr =
>> efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->static_data_buffer_address);
>> - th->acpi_param_buffer_addr =
>> efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->acpi_param_buffer_address);
>> + th->handler_addr =
>> + (void *)efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info-
>>> handler_address, EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE);
>> + th->static_data_buffer_addr =
>> + efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info-
>>> static_data_buffer_address, EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA);
>> + th->acpi_param_buffer_addr =
>> + efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info-
>>> acpi_param_buffer_address, EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA);
>> } while (++cur_handler < tm->handler_count && (handler_info =
>> get_next_handler(handler_info)));
>>
>> return 0;
>> @@ -250,8 +257,16 @@ static acpi_status
>> acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function,
>>
>> handler = find_prm_handler(&buffer->handler_guid);
>> module = find_prm_module(&buffer->handler_guid);
>> - if (!handler || !module)
>> - goto invalid_guid;
>> + if (!handler || !module) {
>> + buffer->prm_status =
>> PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND;
>> + goto error;
> I think it is okay to return AE_OK directly, right?
>
> thanks,
> rui
I'm also good for this.
I followed the convention in this block.
If change to "return", i will change all "goto error".
How do you think?
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!handler->handler_addr || !handler-
>>> static_data_buffer_addr ||
>> + !handler->acpi_param_buffer_addr) {
>> + buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_ERROR;
>> + goto error;
>> + }
>>
>> ACPI_COPY_NAMESEG(context.signature, "PRMC");
>> context.revision = 0x0;
>> @@ -274,8 +289,10 @@ static acpi_status
>> acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function,
>> case PRM_CMD_START_TRANSACTION:
>>
>> module = find_prm_module(&buffer->handler_guid);
>> - if (!module)
>> - goto invalid_guid;
>> + if (!module) {
>> + buffer->prm_status =
>> PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND;
>> + goto error;
>> + }
>>
>> if (module->updatable)
>> module->updatable = false;
>> @@ -286,8 +303,10 @@ static acpi_status
>> acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function,
>> case PRM_CMD_END_TRANSACTION:
>>
>> module = find_prm_module(&buffer->handler_guid);
>> - if (!module)
>> - goto invalid_guid;
>> + if (!module) {
>> + buffer->prm_status =
>> PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND;
>> + goto error;
>> + }
>>
>> if (module->updatable)
>> buffer->prm_status =
>> UPDATE_UNLOCK_WITHOUT_LOCK;
>> @@ -301,10 +320,7 @@ static acpi_status
>> acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function,
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> - return AE_OK;
>> -
>> -invalid_guid:
>> - buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND;
>> +error:
>> return AE_OK;
>> }
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists