From: Alexander Popov <alpopov@ptsecurity.com>
To: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Tomi Valkeinen" <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexander Popov <alpopov@ptsecurity.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] x86: fix bad memory access in fb_is_primary_device()
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:46:07 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56E01B0F.3000306@ptsecurity.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160216151859.GB11373@redhat.com>
On 16.02.2016 18:18, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:49:18PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> [ Including Peter, the efifb maintainer. Original email is here,
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145552936131335&w=2
>>
>> I've snipped some of the quoted text ]
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Feb, at 08:55:22AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> (I've Cc:-ed the EFI-FB and FB gents. Mail quoted below.)
>>>
>>> * Alexander Popov <alpopov@ptsecurity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Currently the code in fb_is_primary_device() contains to_pci_dev() macro
>>>> which is applied to dev from struct fb_info. In some cases this causes
>>>> bad memory access when fb_is_primary_device() handles fb_info of efifb.
>>>> The reason is that fb dev of efifb is embedded into struct platform_device
>>>> but not into struct pci_dev.
>>>>
>>>> We can fix this by checking fb dev bus name in fb_is_primary_device().
>>>>
>>>> It seems that this bug reveals some bigger problem with to_pci_dev(),
>>>> to_platform_device() and others, which just do container_of() and
>>>> don't check whether struct device is a part of the appropriate structure.
>>>> Should we do something more about it?
>>>>
>>>> KASan report:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Popov <alpopov@ptsecurity.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/x86/video/fbdev.c | 9 +++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/video/fbdev.c b/arch/x86/video/fbdev.c
>>>> index d5644bb..4999f78 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/video/fbdev.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/video/fbdev.c
>>>> @@ -18,11 +18,12 @@ int fb_is_primary_device(struct fb_info *info)
>>>> struct pci_dev *default_device = vga_default_device();
>>>> struct resource *res = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> - if (device)
>>>> - pci_dev = to_pci_dev(device);
>>>> -
>>>> - if (!pci_dev)
>>>> + if (!device || !device->bus ||
>>>> + !device->bus->name || strcmp(device->bus->name, "pci")) {
>>>> return 0;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + pci_dev = to_pci_dev(device);
>>>>
>>>> if (default_device) {
>>>> if (pci_dev == default_device)
>>>> --
>>>> 1.9.1
>>>>
>>
>> I wonder if this issue could explain some of the efifb issues we've
>> seen reported on bugzilla.kernel.org in the past where switching from
>> efifb to some other framebuffer device caused hangs during boot. I'm
>> struggling to find the relevant bugzilla entries now, though.
>
> It's possible it could, but I don't have them handy either. I've also
> wondered if some of them were due to bad data from the firmware - at
> plugfests we've seen some cases where the actual video mode as measured
> with a ruler is clearly not what the firmware claims it to be, so it's
> entirely possible we're occasionally told a memory region that is not
> what's actually mapped, or that's mapped but is only partially backed
> by the actual frame buffer memory.
>
> But aside from that diversion, I think Alexander has a legitimate
> question about use of to_pci_dev(). If I ask the question: can we fix
> this in efifb by making it live on a pci_dev, I have a couple of
> fundamental problems:
>
> 1) technically it doesn't have to be a pci_dev at all (but, practically,
> so far it always is on PCI...)
> 2) From EFI, we can't necessarily pin it down to a single PCI device
> even if it is PCI. Before we do EFI's ExitBootServices() call, we
> can try to find the PCI_IO handle our GOP instance is connected to,
> but not all firmware GOP drivers use that, so it doesn't always work.
> And even if it did, there can be more than one instance pointing to
> the same memory with different PCI devices - lots of laptops have
> this sort of thing.
> 3) Ignoring the EFI side and just focusing on PCI, if there's two
> devices configured that could do scanout, it can be mapped to one
> device's BAR but the other device be the actual device using it. In
> this case either choice is probably wrong for something, and the
> things that have the information to resolve which one don't include
> efifb - they're the drivers we'll likely hand off to later.
>
> So it's most likely right for efifb to be embedded in a platform_device
> instead of a pci_dev. Which leads back to Alexander's question - if it
> isn't in a pci_dev, that means fb_is_primary_device() needs to not
> assume it is. So the patch appears correct, but so is the question -
> should to_pci_dev() be checking this and returning NULL here?
The discussion has suspended. May I activate it again?
So there are two ways to fix the bad memory access in fb_is_primary_device().
The first one is proposed in my patch. Checking the bus name string doesn't
look good but I didn't manage to come up with anything better.
The second way is changing to_pci_dev() similarly. It may return NULL or
call BUG() when struct device is a part of an inappropriate structure.
Which way is better? Do we need to do anything with other similar macros?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-15 9:30 [PATCH RFC 1/1] x86: fix bad memory access in fb_is_primary_device() Alexander Popov
2016-02-16 7:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-16 13:49 ` Matt Fleming
2016-02-16 15:18 ` Peter Jones
2016-03-09 12:46 ` Alexander Popov [this message]
2016-03-25 11:29 ` Alexander Popov
2016-03-29 11:53 ` Matt Fleming
2016-03-29 12:12 ` Matt Fleming
2016-03-31 13:31 ` Ingo Molnar
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=56E01B0F.3000306@ptsecurity.com \
--to=alpopov@ptsecurity.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pjones@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).