[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [GIT PULL] ACPI fixes for v6.9-rc6
From:       Linus Torvalds <torvalds () linux-foundation ! org>
Date:       2024-04-25 19:18:17
Message-ID: CAHk-=wj52PUZ0xtoLs79B9uar6h7FVaKC0gbD-a_wZxDjH2ViQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 11:58, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> And maybe this time, it's not a buggy mess?

Actually, even with MASK_VAL() fixed, I think it's *STILL* a buggy mess.

Why? Beuse the *uses* of MASK_VAL() seem entirely bogus.

In particular, we have this in cpc_write():

        if (reg->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY)
                val = MASK_VAL(reg, val);

        switch (size) {
        case 8:
                writeb_relaxed(val, vaddr);
                break;
        case 16:
                writew_relaxed(val, vaddr);
                break;
        ...

and I strongly suspect that it needs to update the 'vaddr' too. Something like

        if (reg->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY) {
                val = MASK_VAL(reg, val);
  #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
                vaddr += reg->bit_offset >> 3;
                if (reg->bit_offset & 7)
                        return -EFAULT;
  #else
                /* Fixme if we ever care */
                if (reg->bit_offset)
                        return -EFAULT;
  #endif
        }

*might* be changing this in the right direction, but it's unclear and
I neither know that CPC rules, nor did I think _that_ much about it.

Anyway, the take-away should be that all this code is entirely broken
and somebody didn't think enough about it.

It's possible that that whole cpc_write() ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY
case should be done as a 64-bit "read-mask-write" sequence.

Possibly with "reg->bit_offset == 0" and the 8/16/32/64-bit cases as a
special case for "just do the write".

Or, maybe writes with a non-zero bit offset shouldn't be allowed at
all, and there are CPC rules that aren't checked. I don't know. I only
know that the current code is seriously broken.

                   Linus

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]