linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/intel: power-domains validate domain in tpmi_cpu

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: <abdd6c22714984782fbbb7dab5a7e1ab0fa4799c.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 04:49:12 -0700
From: srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Hans de Goede <hansg@...nel.org>, Ilpo Järvinen
 <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Tero Kristo
 <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/intel: power-domains validate domain in
 tpmi_cpu_online()

On Tue, 2025-08-26 at 21:39 -0400, David Arcari wrote:
> 
> Hi Srinivas,
> 
> On 8/26/25 4:26 PM, srinivas pandruvada wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2025-08-26 at 12:43 -0400, David Arcari wrote:
> > > Although tpmi_get_power_domain_mask() calls
> > > tpmi_domain_is_valid()
> > > prior to indexing tpmi_power_domain_mask[],
> > Because this an API call so that caller parameter needs to be
> > sanitized.
> > 
> > >   tpmi_cpu_online() does
> > > not.
> > This is hotplug callback, which should have correct topology
> > information.
> > 
> > >   In the case where a VM creates non-contiguous package ids the
> > > result can be memory corruption. This can be prevented by adding
> > > the same validation in tpmi_cpu_online().
> > > 
> > 
> > This driver is getting loaded means MSR 0x54 is virtualised
> > otherwise
> > this driver will not load.
> 
> I don't have direct access to the system, but this appears to be the 
> case.  The driver is reading MSR 0x54:
> 
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi_power_domains.c:#define 
> MSR_PM_LOGICAL_ID       0x54
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi_power_domains.c:        ret = 
> rdmsrl_safe(MSR_PM_LOGICAL_ID, &data);
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi_power_domains.c:        ret = 
> rdmsrl_safe(MSR_PM_LOGICAL_ID, &data);
> 
> 
> > Not sure this is an upstream kernel or not.
> 
> This was not an upstream kernel, but I don't see anything in the 
> upstream driver that would have prevented the access that is
> occurring.
> 
The issue here the topology_max_packages() is 2 but cpu 1 package ID is
also 2. So everywhere topology_max_packages() is used there may be
issue as you have to verify the package ID is fine.


Repost the patch by adding the above root cause in the description, so
we know why we need this change.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> > 
> > Some comments below.
> > 
> > > Fixes: 17ca2780458c ("platform/x86/intel: TPMI domain id and CPU
> > > mapping")
> > > 
> > Andy already pointed about new line here.
> > 
> > > Cc: Hans de Goede <hansg@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > > Cc: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
> > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi_power_domains.c | 3 +++
> > >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi_power_domains.c
> > > b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi_power_domains.c
> > > index 9d8247bb9cfa..ae5b58679e29 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi_power_domains.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi_power_domains.c
> > > @@ -194,6 +194,9 @@ static int tpmi_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
> > >   	if (ret)
> > >   		return 0;
> > >   
> > Need some more information.
> > 
> > The only case this check is required if
> > topology_physical_package_id(cpu) is returning greater or equal to
> > topology_max_packages(). If this true in this case, please check
> > the
> > value of info->pkg_id. If this is bad then then some other places
> > also
> > this may have issue. info->punit_domain_id is already checked for
> > valid
> > value in tpmi_get_logical_id().
> 
> That is correct.  In the case of the crash we have:
> 
> crash> p/x __max_logical_packages
> $1 = 0x2
> 
> static inline unsigned int topology_max_packages(void)
> {
> 	return __max_logical_packages;
> }
> 
> 
> $2 = {
>    hnode = {
>      next = 0xffff9651bbc37010,
>      pprev = 0xffffffffc0b7a640 <tpmi_cpu_hash>
>    },
>    linux_cpu = 1,
>    pkg_id = 2 '\002',
>    punit_thread_id = 0 '\000',
>    punit_core_id = 0 '\000',
>    punit_domain_id = 0 '\000'
> }
> 
> The pkg_id of 2 leads to the bad reference.
> 
> FWIW this change has been tested and resolves the issue.
> 
> Let me know if there is any other information I can provide.  I will
> be 
> out of the office on Wednesday, so response may be delayed.
> 
> Best,
> -DA
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Srinivas
> > 
> > > +	if (!tpmi_domain_is_valid(info))
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > >   	index = info->pkg_id * MAX_POWER_DOMAINS + info-
> > > > punit_domain_id;
> > >   
> > >   	guard(mutex)(&tpmi_lock);
> > 
> > 
>