[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f7c08e09-1259-46dc-8493-ab41a058013d@mandelbit.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:19:46 +0100
From: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...delbit.com>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc: amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, alexander.deucher@....com,
christian.koenig@....com, Xinhui.Pan@....com,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amdgpu: prevent NULL pointer dereference if ATIF is not
supported
On 31/10/2024 15:41, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 10/30/2024 16:06, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>> Hi Mario,
>>
>> On 30/10/2024 02:41, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2024 18:32, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>>>> acpi_evaluate_object() may return AE_NOT_FOUND (failure), which
>>>> would result in dereferencing buffer.pointer (obj) while being NULL.
>>>>
>>>> Bail out also when status is AE_NOT_FOUND with a proper error message.
>>>>
>>>> This fixes 1 FORWARD_NULL issue reported by Coverity
>>>> Report: CID 1600951: Null pointer dereferences (FORWARD_NULL)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...delbit.com>
>>>
>>> I'm not really sure how realistic this failure is. Can you share the
>>> full call trace that Coverity identified?
>>
>> I just checked Coverity Scan and it only says:
>>
>> 5. Condition status, taking true branch.
>> 6. Condition status != 5U /* (acpi_status)(5 | 0) */, taking
>> false branch.
>>
>> The above points are related to:
>>
>> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status != AE_NOT_FOUND)
>>
>> It doesn't show how acpi_evaluate_object() is expected to return
>> AE_NOT_FOUND.
>>
>> This said, if you think this case is unrealistic, why do you check for
>> "status != AE_NOT_FOUND" at all?
>>
>> At this point maybe it would make more sense to simply drop this check
>> and always bail out with the current error message.
>>
>> Basically a patch with the following only:
>>
>> - /* Fail if calling the method fails and ATIF is supported */
>> - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status != AE_NOT_FOUND) {
>> + /* Fail if calling the method fails */
>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>
>> This way we don't make a fuzz for a possibly unrealistic case, while
>> still protecting against bugs and null-dereferences.
>
> Yeah I think that's a good idea. Can you respin it as a v2?
Will do!
Thanks for your feedback, Mario.
Regards,
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>>
>>> amdgpu_atif_pci_probe_handle() will check whether the handle is
>>> available in the first place. We'll never this this far if that failed.
>>>
>>> Because of that I don't follow how this could return AE_NOT_FOUND.
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c | 11 +++++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c b/drivers/gpu/
>>>> drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c
>>>> index cce85389427f..f10c3261a4ab 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acpi.c
>>>> @@ -172,10 +172,13 @@ static union acpi_object
>>>> *amdgpu_atif_call(struct amdgpu_atif *atif,
>>>> &buffer);
>>>> obj = (union acpi_object *)buffer.pointer;
>>>> - /* Fail if calling the method fails and ATIF is supported */
>>>> - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status != AE_NOT_FOUND) {
>>>> - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("failed to evaluate ATIF got %s\n",
>>>> - acpi_format_exception(status));
>>>> + /* Fail if calling the method fails */
>>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>> + if (status != AE_NOT_FOUND)
>>>> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("failed to evaluate ATIF got %s\n",
>>>> + acpi_format_exception(status));
>>>> + else
>>>> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("ATIF not supported\n");
>>>> kfree(obj);
>>>> return NULL;
>>>> }
>>>
>>
>
--
Antonio Quartulli
CEO and Co-Founder
Mandelbit Srl
https://www.mandelbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists