From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Dave Jiang" <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Bound CXL event record copy to the firmware section length
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 17:09:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260717170909.D60F21F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260717161647.1493259-2-dave.jiang@intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The patch fixes an out-of-bounds read in cxl_cper_post_event(), but fails to apply a similar bounds check to the adjacent CXL Protocol Error handler for CPER_SEC_CXL_PROT_ERR.
- [High] Missing bounds checks for CPER_SEC_CXL_PROT_ERR and CPER_SEC_PCIE in the ACPI Extended Error Log (acpi_extlog.c), leading to out-of-bounds reads.
- [High] Missing bounds check for HISI PCIe vendor-specific error records, causing an out-of-bounds read.
- [High] Spinlock deadlock in CXL CPER work queue registration functions due to failure to disable interrupts.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v3 01/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Bound CXL event record copy to the firmware section length ---
commit 36a126e36333bbe9036612ec43459f24c942a9bb
Author: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Subject: ACPI: APEI: GHES: Bound CXL event record copy to the firmware section length
This commit addresses an out-of-bounds read of the firmware CPER section by
adding bounds checking for CXL event records. It updates cxl_cper_post_event()
to verify that the payload length matches expected structure sizes.
Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260617-topics-ahmtib01-ras_ffh_arm_internal_review-v6-0-91f725174aa0@arm.com?part=6
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> index 3236a3ce79d6b..a752e152a5a0b 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> @@ -949,15 +954,18 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
> } else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_CXL_GEN_MEDIA_GUID)) {
> struct cxl_cper_event_rec *rec = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>
> - cxl_cper_post_event(CXL_CPER_EVENT_GEN_MEDIA, rec);
> + cxl_cper_post_event(CXL_CPER_EVENT_GEN_MEDIA, rec,
> + gdata->error_data_length);
> } else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_CXL_DRAM_GUID)) {
> struct cxl_cper_event_rec *rec = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>
> - cxl_cper_post_event(CXL_CPER_EVENT_DRAM, rec);
> + cxl_cper_post_event(CXL_CPER_EVENT_DRAM, rec,
> + gdata->error_data_length);
> } else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_CXL_MEM_MODULE_GUID)) {
> struct cxl_cper_event_rec *rec = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>
> - cxl_cper_post_event(CXL_CPER_EVENT_MEM_MODULE, rec);
> + cxl_cper_post_event(CXL_CPER_EVENT_MEM_MODULE, rec,
> + gdata->error_data_length);
> } else {
> void *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does CPER_SEC_CXL_PROT_ERR also need a
similar bounds check in ghes_do_proc()?
The payload is passed to cxl_cper_post_prot_err() without validating the outer
section length:
drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c:ghes_do_proc()
else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_CXL_PROT_ERR)) {
struct cxl_cper_sec_prot_err *prot_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
cxl_cper_post_prot_err(prot_err, gdata->error_severity);
}
Then in cxl_cper_setup_prot_err_work_data(), an out-of-bounds copy can occur
based on an unvalidated dvsec_len:
drivers/acpi/apei/ghes_helpers.c:cxl_cper_setup_prot_err_work_data()
cap_start = dvsec_start + prot_err->dvsec_len;
memcpy(&wd->ras_cap, cap_start, sizeof(wd->ras_cap));
Could an untrusted firmware payload lead to an out-of-bounds read here?
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but are there missing bounds checks in other
consumers of these error records, like drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c?
In extlog_print(), the payload for CXL protocol errors is passed without
checking if gdata->error_data_length is large enough:
drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c:extlog_print()
extlog_cxl_cper_handle_prot_err(prot_err, gdata->error_severity);
Similarly, in extlog_print_pcie(), the payload is dereferenced directly:
drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c:extlog_print_pcie()
if (!(pcie_err->validation_bits & CPER_PCIE_VALID_DEVICE_ID && ...))
Could this result in out-of-bounds reads if the firmware provides truncated
payload sections?
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does hisi_pcie_notify_error() in
drivers/pci/controller/pcie-hisi-error.c also lack bounds checking for
vendor-specific error records?
The payload from gdata is directly cast and dereferenced without ensuring
gdata->error_data_length covers the structure:
drivers/pci/controller/pcie-hisi-error.c:hisi_pcie_notify_error()
if (error_data->socket_id != socket)
Could a malformed firmware error record cause an out-of-bounds read here?
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but is there a potential spinlock deadlock in
the CXL CPER work queue registration functions?
In cxl_cper_register_work(), the lock is acquired without disabling interrupts:
drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c:cxl_cper_register_work()
guard(spinlock)(&cxl_cper_work_lock);
If a hardware error interrupt fires on the same CPU while the lock is held,
the interrupt handler calls cxl_cper_post_event(), which attempts to acquire
the same lock:
drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c:cxl_cper_post_event()
guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&cxl_cper_work_lock);
Could this cause a deadlock if the interrupt occurs when the driver is
registering the work queue?
A similar issue appears in cxl_cper_register_prot_err_work() with
cxl_cper_prot_err_work_lock.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260717161647.1493259-1-dave.jiang@intel.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-17 17:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-17 16:16 [PATCH v3 00/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Collection of fixes for issues reported by sashiko Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 01/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Bound CXL event record copy to the firmware section length Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 17:09 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 02/10] efi/cper: Reject CPER records with an out-of-range error_data_length Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 17:26 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 03/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Validate CXL protocol error section length before RAS cap copy Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 17:41 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 04/10] ACPI: extlog: Avoid populating software AER metadata from raw hardware buffer Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 17:58 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 05/10] ACPI: extlog: Validate PCIe error section length before payload access Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 18:29 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 06/10] ACPI: extlog: Defer CXL protocol error handling to avoid lock inversion Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 18:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 07/10] ACPI: extlog: Fix CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_PCIEAER guard typo Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 19:07 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-17 21:24 ` Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 08/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Validate memory error section length before payload access Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 19:23 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 09/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Bound AER info copy and sanitize software metadata Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 19:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-17 16:16 ` [PATCH v3 10/10] ACPI: extlog: Validate elog record length before walking sections Dave Jiang
2026-07-17 19:57 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260717170909.D60F21F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox