[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aSaxF4qbsRvieuL3@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:49:43 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Guixin Liu <kanie@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Check rom header and data structure addr before
accessing
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 03:26:23PM +0800, Guixin Liu wrote:
> We meet a crash when running stress-ng on x86_64 machine:
>
> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffa0000007f40000
> RIP: 0010:pci_get_rom_size+0x52/0x220
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> pci_map_rom+0x80/0x130
> pci_read_rom+0x4b/0xe0
> kernfs_file_read_iter+0x96/0x180
> vfs_read+0x1b1/0x300
>
> Our analysis reveals that the rom space's start address is
> 0xffa0000007f30000, and size is 0x10000. Because of broken rom
> space, before calling readl(pds), the pds's value is
> 0xffa0000007f3ffff, which is already pointed to the rom space
> end, invoking readl() would read 4 bytes therefore cause an
> out-of-bounds access and trigger a crash.
> Fix this by adding image header and data structure checking.
>
> We also found another crash on arm64 machine:
>
> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
> ffff8000dd1393ff
> Mem abort info:
> ESR = 0x0000000096000021
> EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
> SET = 0, FnV = 0
> EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
> FSC = 0x21: alignment fault
>
> The call trace is the same with x86_64, but the crash reason is
> that the data structure addr is not aligned with 4, and arm64
> machine report "alignment fault". Fix this by adding alignment
> checking.
Thanks for the update, looks much better now!
My comments below.
...
> +static inline bool pci_rom_header_valid(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> + void __iomem *image,
> + void __iomem *rom,
> + size_t size,
> + bool last_image)
> +{
> + uintptr_t rom_end = (uintptr_t)rom + size;
> + uintptr_t header_end;
Note: Linus told that kernel should not use uintptr_t.
s/uintptr_t/unsigned long/g
and here in some cases we even don't need that type at all.
> + if (check_add_overflow((uintptr_t)image, PCI_ROM_HEADER_SIZE,
> + &header_end))
> + return false;
> + if (image >= rom && header_end < rom_end &&
> + IS_ALIGNED((uintptr_t)image, 2)) {
So, why not
/* Check if we have enough space in ROM */
if (image < rom || header_end > rom_end)
return false;
/* ARM requires proper alignment */
/// Find a better comment text for above.
if (!IS_ALIGNED((unsigned long)image, 2UL))
return false;
> + /* Standard PCI ROMs start out with these bytes 55 AA */
> + if (readw(image) == 0xAA55)
> + return true;
> +
> + if (!last_image)
> + pci_info(pdev, "No more image in the PCI ROM\n");
> + else
> + pci_info(pdev, "Invalid PCI ROM header signature: expecting 0xaa55, got %#06x\n",
> + readw(image));
> + }
> + return false;
> +}
...
> +static inline bool pci_rom_data_struct_valid(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> + void __iomem *pds,
> + void __iomem *rom,
> + size_t size)
Similar comments as per above.
...
> image = rom;
> do {
> void __iomem *pds;
> +
> + if (!pci_rom_header_valid(pdev, image, rom, size, true))
> break;
> +
> /* get the PCI data structure and check its "PCIR" signature */
> pds = image + readw(image + 24);
> + if (!pci_rom_data_struct_valid(pdev, pds, rom, size))
> break;
> +
> last_image = readb(pds + 21) & 0x80;
> length = readw(pds + 16);
> image += length * 512;
> + if (!pci_rom_header_valid(pdev, image, rom, size, (bool)last_image))
This casting is a bit odd. Can we avoid doing like this?
> } while (length && !last_image);
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists