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: <163014706409.25758.9928933953235257712.tip-bot2@tip-bot2> <d18d2c6fd87f552def3210930da34fd276b4fd6d.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <d18d2c6fd87f552def3210930da34fd276b4fd6d.camel@perches.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 28 Aug 2021 14:18:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXGhnzwP2OP=ECwNK4sG383wvmybCbvUz5YrqNUHSPgOBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tip: efi/core] efi: cper: fix scnprintf() use in cper_mem_err_location()
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

(add RAS/APEI folks)

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 at 13:31, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2021-08-28 at 10:37 +0000, tip-bot2 for Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > The following commit has been merged into the efi/core branch of tip:
> []
> > efi: cper: fix scnprintf() use in cper_mem_err_location()
> >
> > The last two if-clauses fail to update n, so whatever they might have
> > written at &msg[n] would be cut off by the final nul-termination.
> >
> > That nul-termination is redundant; scnprintf(), just like snprintf(),
> > guarantees a nul-terminated output buffer, provided the buffer size is
> > positive.
> >
> > And there's no need to discount one byte from the initial buffer;
> > vsnprintf() expects to be given the full buffer size - it's not going
> > to write the nul-terminator one beyond the given (buffer, size) pair.
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> []
> > @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ static int cper_mem_err_location(struct cper_mem_err_compact *mem, char *msg)
> >               return 0;
> >
> >
> >       n = 0;
> > -     len = CPER_REC_LEN - 1;
> > +     len = CPER_REC_LEN;
> >       if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_NODE)
> >               n += scnprintf(msg + n, len - n, "node: %d ", mem->node);
> >       if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_CARD)
>
> [etc...]
>
> Is this always single threaded?
>
> It doesn't seem this is safe for reentry as the output buffer
> being written into is a single static
>
> static char rcd_decode_str[CPER_REC_LEN];
>

Good question. CPER error record decoding typically occurs in response
to an error event raised by firmware, so I think this happens to work
fine in practice. Whether this is guaranteed, I'm not so sure ...