lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v15 08/11] fw_cfg: handle fw_cfg_read_blob() error
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:33:09PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> fw_cfg_read_blob() may fail, but does not return error. This may lead
> to undefined behaviours, such as a memcmp(sig, "QEMU") on uninitilized
> memory.

I don't think that's true - there's a memset there that
will initialize the memory. probe is likely the only
case where it returns a slightly incorrect data.

> Return an error if ACPI locking failed. Also, the following
> DMA read/write extension will add more error paths that should be
> handled appropriately.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> index f6f90bef604c..5e6e5ac71dab 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> @@ -59,8 +59,8 @@ static void fw_cfg_sel_endianness(u16 key)
> }
>
> /* read chunk of given fw_cfg blob (caller responsible for sanity-check) */
> -static void fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
> - void *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
> +static ssize_t fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
> + void *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
> {
> u32 glk = -1U;
> acpi_status status;
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static void fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
> /* Should never get here */
> WARN(1, "fw_cfg_read_blob: Failed to lock ACPI!\n");
> memset(buf, 0, count);
> - return;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> mutex_lock(&fw_cfg_dev_lock);

Wouldn't something like -EBUSY be more appropriate?

> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ static void fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
> mutex_unlock(&fw_cfg_dev_lock);
>
> acpi_release_global_lock(glk);
> + return count;
> }
>
> /* clean up fw_cfg device i/o */
> @@ -165,8 +166,9 @@ static int fw_cfg_do_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> /* verify fw_cfg device signature */
> - fw_cfg_read_blob(FW_CFG_SIGNATURE, sig, 0, FW_CFG_SIG_SIZE);
> - if (memcmp(sig, "QEMU", FW_CFG_SIG_SIZE) != 0) {
> + if (fw_cfg_read_blob(FW_CFG_SIGNATURE, sig,
> + 0, FW_CFG_SIG_SIZE) < 0 ||
> + memcmp(sig, "QEMU", FW_CFG_SIG_SIZE) != 0) {
> fw_cfg_io_cleanup();
> return -ENODEV;
> }
> @@ -326,8 +328,7 @@ static ssize_t fw_cfg_sysfs_read_raw(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
> if (count > entry->size - pos)
> count = entry->size - pos;
>
> - fw_cfg_read_blob(entry->select, buf, pos, count);
> - return count;
> + return fw_cfg_read_blob(entry->select, buf, pos, count);
> }
>
> static struct bin_attribute fw_cfg_sysfs_attr_raw = {
> @@ -483,7 +484,11 @@ static int fw_cfg_register_dir_entries(void)
> struct fw_cfg_file *dir;
> size_t dir_size;
>
> - fw_cfg_read_blob(FW_CFG_FILE_DIR, &files_count, 0, sizeof(files_count));
> + ret = fw_cfg_read_blob(FW_CFG_FILE_DIR, &files_count,
> + 0, sizeof(files_count));
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> count = be32_to_cpu(files_count);
> dir_size = count * sizeof(struct fw_cfg_file);
>
> @@ -491,7 +496,10 @@ static int fw_cfg_register_dir_entries(void)
> if (!dir)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - fw_cfg_read_blob(FW_CFG_FILE_DIR, dir, sizeof(files_count), dir_size);
> + ret = fw_cfg_read_blob(FW_CFG_FILE_DIR, dir,
> + sizeof(files_count), dir_size);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto end;
>
> for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> ret = fw_cfg_register_file(&dir[i]);
> @@ -499,6 +507,7 @@ static int fw_cfg_register_dir_entries(void)
> break;
> }
>
> +end:
> kfree(dir);
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -539,7 +548,10 @@ static int fw_cfg_sysfs_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> goto err_probe;
>
> /* get revision number, add matching top-level attribute */
> - fw_cfg_read_blob(FW_CFG_ID, &rev, 0, sizeof(rev));
> + err = fw_cfg_read_blob(FW_CFG_ID, &rev, 0, sizeof(rev));
> + if (err < 0)
> + goto err_probe;
> +
> fw_cfg_rev = le32_to_cpu(rev);
> err = sysfs_create_file(fw_cfg_top_ko, &fw_cfg_rev_attr.attr);
> if (err)

I think that this is the only case where it's not doing the right thing right now in
that it shows 0 as the revision to the users. Is it worth failing probe
here? We could just skip the attribute, could we not?

> --
> 2.16.1.73.g5832b7e9f2

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-27 01:21    [W:0.113 / U:0.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site