Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJZ5v0j3=82x1hV9SCdinJQPkDXmJd9BFoqvNxNHSb6iS8PHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9c3bc1b2-bb8d-194d-6faf-e4d7d346dc9b@oracle.com> <CAJZ5v0j8udd0R6A1wwpNvZL5Dr1pRcdiZr2if5y50o7OkHOMqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ae44491-4404-6873-4ee6-6cf58c1ae6fb@redhat.com> <CAJZ5v0gC+60n0-UkMw8h5JPBc6grQtD1ambSOCAHV2HLm886yQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0g_ztenDY-ER6A0fKD-ZHhLfF3zQdRYYxQb5jSXudd8xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <e8593eae-40b8-bc9a-78db-529d28d2be88@redhat.com> <YEkgP0G94uQBGDa9@linux.ibm.com>
 <0d05364c-4881-d78a-9721-bd15f5eb822b@redhat.com> <CAJZ5v0jOpNJrOt5xn-1YkSB9Q15NZS2cxmsGKAU945YNbs+hOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YE5dJ6U3nPWsXY4D@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <YE5dJ6U3nPWsXY4D@linux.ibm.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:19:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0g1H6hCVbAAFajhn0AYRMU4GkZOqggOB6LVdgFx_vfwOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI: fix acpi table use after free
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        George Kennedy <george.kennedy@oracle.com>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
        Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@intel.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@acpica.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@oracle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@gmail.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 8:00 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 04:36:31PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:47 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is some care that should be taken to make sure we get the order
> > > > right, but I don't see a fundamental issue here.
> >
> > Me neither.
> >
> > > > If I understand correctly, Rafael's concern is about changing the parts of
> > > > ACPICA that should be OS agnostic, so I think we just need another place to
> > > > call memblock_reserve() rather than acpi_tb_install_table_with_override().
> >
> > Something like this.
> >
> > There is also the problem that memblock_reserve() needs to be called
> > for all of the tables early enough, which will require some reordering
> > of the early init code.
> >
> > > > Since the reservation should be done early in x86::setup_arch() (and
> > > > probably in arm64::setup_arch()) we might just have a function that parses
> > > > table headers and reserves them, similarly to how we parse the tables
> > > > during KASLR setup.
> >
> > Right.
>
> I've looked at it a bit more and we do something like the patch below that
> nearly duplicates acpi_tb_parse_root_table() which is not very nice.

It looks to me that the code need not be duplicated (see below).

> Besides, reserving ACPI tables early and then calling acpi_table_init()
> (and acpi_tb_parse_root_table() again would mean doing the dance with
> early_memremap() twice for no good reason.

That'd be simply inefficient which is kind of acceptable to me to start with.

And I changing the ACPICA code can be avoided at least initially, it
by itself would be a good enough reason.

> I believe the most effective way to deal with this would be to have a
> function that does parsing, reservation and installs the tables supplied by
> the firmware which can be called really early and then another function
> that overrides tables if needed a some later point.

I agree that this should be the direction to go into.

However, it looks to me that something like the following could be
done to start with:

(a) Make __acpi_map_table() call memblock_reserve() in addition to
early_memremap().

My assumption here is that the memblock_reserve() will simply be
ignored if it is called too late.

(b) Introduce acpi_reserve_tables() as something like

void __init acpi_table_reserve(void)
{
        acpi_initialize_tables(initial_tables, ACPI_MAX_TABLES, 0);
}

Because initial_tables is passed to acpi_initialize_tables() above and
allow_resize is 0, the array used by it will simply get overwritten
when acpi_table_init() gets called.

(c) Make setup_arch() call acpi_table_reserve() like in the original
patch from George.

Would that work?

If so, I'll cut a patch along these lines.