| 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: <1d88a9a8-c594-4474-ab85-1013e34deb73@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 11:45:22 +0800
From: Koba Ko <kobak@...dia.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Matt Ochs <mochs@...dia.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] acpi/prmt: find block with specific type
On 10/3/24 05:11, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 at 20:06, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 5:55 PM KobaK <kobak@...dia.com> 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.
>>>
>>> [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 and
>>> find a block with EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE for prm context.
>>> If no suitable block is found, a warning message will be prompted
>>> but the procedue continues to manage the next prm handler.
>>> However, if the prm handler is actullay called without proper allocation,
>>> it would result in a failure during error handling.
>>>
>>> By using the correct memory types for runtime services,
>>> Ensure that the PRM handler and the context are
>>> properly mapped in the virtual address space during runtime,
>>> preventing the paging request error.
>>>
>>> [1] https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_10_Aug29.pdf
>> I need input from EFI people on this, so can you please resend the
>> patch with a CC to linux-efi@...r.kernel.org?
>>
>>> Fixes: cefc7ca46235 ("ACPI: PRM: implement OperationRegion handler for the PlatformRtMechanism subtype")
>>> Signed-off-by: KobaK <kobak@...dia.com>
> Please use your full name.
Hi Ardb,
Sure, will update.
>
>>> Reviewed-by: Matthew R. Ochs <mochs@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2:
>>> 1. format the changelog and add more about error handling.
>>> 2. replace goto
>>> V3: Warn if parts of handler are missed during va-pa translating.
>>> V4: Fix the 0day
>>> V5: Fix typo and pr_warn warning
>>> ---
>>> drivers/acpi/prmt.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/prmt.c b/drivers/acpi/prmt.c
>>> index c78453c74ef5..cd4a7f5491d6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/prmt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/prmt.c
>>> @@ -72,15 +72,17 @@ 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;
>>> + }
>>> }
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>> @@ -148,9 +150,18 @@ 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);
> Wouldn't it make more sense to test the EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute
> rather than expecting/assuming a certain memory type in each case?
> That attribute is precisely what controls whether or not a region has
> been remapped into the firmware's page tables.
Please see the below
>
>>> + 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);
>>> +
>>> + if (!th->handler_addr || !th->static_data_buffer_addr || !th->acpi_param_buffer_addr)
>>> + pr_warn(
>>> + "Idx: %llu, Parts of handler(GUID: %pUL) are missed, handler_addr %p, data_addr %p, param_addr %p",
> Please improve this diagnostic: 'are missed' is not very helpful.
Are these good for you
```
-static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(u64 pa, u32 type)
+static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(u64 pa)
{
efi_memory_desc_t *md;
u64 pa_offset = pa & ~PAGE_MASK;
u64 page = pa & PAGE_MASK;
for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) {
- if ((md->type == type) &&
+ if ((md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME) &&
(md->phys_addr < pa && pa < md->phys_addr +
PAGE_SIZE * md->num_pages)) {
return pa_offset + md->virt_addr + page -
md->phys_addr;
}
@@ -150,18 +150,20 @@ 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,
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);
-
- if (!th->handler_addr || !th->static_data_buffer_addr ||
!th->acpi_param_buffer_addr)
- pr_warn(
- "Idx: %llu, Parts of handler(GUID: %pUL)
are missed, handler_addr %p, data_addr %p, param_addr %p",
- cur_handler, &th->guid, th->handler_addr,
- (void *)th->static_data_buffer_addr,
(void *)th->acpi_param_buffer_addr);
+ th->handler_addr = (void
*)efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->handler_address);
+ if (!th->handler_addr)
+ pr_warn( "Idx: %llu, failed to find VA for
handler_addr(GUID: %pUL, PA: %p)",
+ cur_handler, &th->guid, th->handler_addr);
+
+ th->static_data_buffer_addr =
efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->static_data_buffer_address);
+ if (!th->static_data_buffer_addr)
+ pr_warn( "Idx: %llu, failed to find VA for
data_addr(PA: %p)",
+ cur_handler, &th->guid, (void
*)th->static_data_buffer_addr);
+
+ th->acpi_param_buffer_addr =
efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->acpi_param_buffer_address);
+ if (!th->acpi_param_buffer_addr)
+ pr_warn( "Idx: %llu, failed to find VA for
param_addr(PA: %p)",
+ cur_handler, &th->guid, (void
*)th->acpi_param_buffer_addr);
```
>
>
>>> + cur_handler, &th->guid, th->handler_addr,
>>> + (void *)th->static_data_buffer_addr, (void *)th->acpi_param_buffer_addr);
>>> } while (++cur_handler < tm->handler_count && (handler_info = get_next_handler(handler_info)));
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>> @@ -250,8 +261,16 @@ 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;
>>> + return AE_OK;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (!handler->handler_addr || !handler->static_data_buffer_addr ||
>>> + !handler->acpi_param_buffer_addr) {
>>> + buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_ERROR;
>>> + return AE_OK;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> ACPI_COPY_NAMESEG(context.signature, "PRMC");
>>> context.revision = 0x0;
>>> @@ -274,8 +293,10 @@ 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;
>>> + return AE_OK;
>>> + }
> What is the reason for this change, and the ones down below?
As per Rui's comment, goto can be replaced with return.
So I modified them with return and PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND.
>
>>> if (module->updatable)
>>> module->updatable = false;
>>> @@ -286,8 +307,10 @@ 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;
>>> + return AE_OK;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> if (module->updatable)
>>> buffer->prm_status = UPDATE_UNLOCK_WITHOUT_LOCK;
>>> @@ -302,10 +325,6 @@ static acpi_status acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function,
>>> }
>>>
>>> return AE_OK;
>>> -
>>> -invalid_guid:
>>> - buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND;
>>> - return AE_OK;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void __init init_prmt(void)
>>> --
>>> 2.43.0
>>>
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists