From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: penn <engguopeng@buaa.edu.cn>
Cc: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cxl/core: Skip non-CXL capabilities in MCAP
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 08:10:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260817081033.8DDF21F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260817075854.17207-3-engguopeng@buaa.edu.cn>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The function blindly trusts the hardware-provided `cap_count` without validating it against the mapped register block size, leading to out-of-bounds MMIO reads.
- [High] Hardware-provided capability `offset` and `length` are not validated against the mapped register block bounds, allowing arbitrary physical memory mapping.
--
--- Patch [2]: [PATCH v2 2/2] cxl/core: Skip non-CXL capabilities in MCAP ---
commit f423958d8928ff9878ca7f5a9766da9989945b54
Author: Penn <engguopeng@buaa.edu.cn>
cxl/core: Skip non-CXL capabilities in MCAP
This commit adds a check for the MCAP Vendor ID before interpreting an entry
as a CXL-defined capability. This prevents non-CXL entries from being
misinterpreted as CXL register blocks when MMPT is enabled.
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> index 20c2d9fbcfe7d..ff1e1cbb9ca8d 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> @@ -134,8 +134,18 @@ void cxl_probe_device_regs(struct device *dev, void __iomem *base,
>
> for (cap = 1; cap <= cap_count; cap++) {
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but is it safe to trust the
hardware-provided cap_count without validating it against the mapped register
block size?
A malicious or faulty CXL device could present a large cap_count (up to
65535) but advertise a small PCI BAR. Since cxl_probe_device_regs() iterates
up to cap_count without bounding the loop by the mapped size, the capability
header reads could fall outside the ioremapped memory region and cause a
kernel oops/panic due to a page fault.
> struct cxl_reg_map *rmap;
> + u16 cap_id, vendor_id;
> u32 offset, length;
> - u16 cap_id;
> +
> + vendor_id = FIELD_GET(PCI_MCAP_HDR_VENDOR_ID,
> + readl(base + PCI_MCAP_HDR_BASE(cap) +
> + PCI_MCAP_HDR_REG_4));
> + /*
> + * The Vendor ID field is reserved and reads as zero in legacy
> + * CXL capability headers. See CXL r3.2, Table 8-44.
> + */
> + if (vendor_id && vendor_id != PCI_VENDOR_ID_CXL)
> + continue;
>
> cap_id = FIELD_GET(CXLDEV_CAP_HDR_CAP_ID_MASK,
> readl(base + cap * 0x10));
> offset = readl(base + cap * 0x10 + 0x4);
> length = readl(base + cap * 0x10 + 0x8);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this code properly validate the
untrusted, hardware-provided offset and length?
In cxl_map_device_regs(), these values are used to compute the physical
address for mapping:
cxl_map_device_regs() {
...
addr = phys_addr + mi->rmap->offset;
length = mi->rmap->size;
*(mi->addr) = devm_cxl_iomap_block(host, addr, length);
...
}
Because they are never checked against the CXL register block's actual size
(map->max_size), a device providing arbitrarily large offsets could cause
the kernel to map unrequested physical address space, potentially leading to
unintended MMIO interactions and system instability.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260817075854.17207-1-engguopeng@buaa.edu.cn?part=2
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-17 7:58 [PATCH v2 0/2] PCI/CXL: Distinguish CXL capabilities in MCAP penn
2026-08-17 7:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] PCI: Add MMIO Capabilities Register Block definitions penn
2026-08-17 8:07 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 7:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] cxl/core: Skip non-CXL capabilities in MCAP penn
2026-08-17 8:10 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260817081033.8DDF21F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=engguopeng@buaa.edu.cn \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@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