* [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 46/80] ACPI: Add out of bounds and numa_off protections to pxm_to_node()
[not found] <20201026235516.1025100-1-sashal@kernel.org>
@ 2020-10-26 23:54 ` Sasha Levin
2020-10-26 23:54 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 52/80] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3 Sasha Levin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2020-10-26 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, stable
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Barry Song, Hanjun Guo, Rafael J . Wysocki,
Sasha Levin, linux-acpi
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
[ Upstream commit 8a3decac087aa897df5af04358c2089e52e70ac4 ]
The function should check the validity of the pxm value before using
it to index the pxm_to_node_map[] array.
Whilst hardening this code may be good in general, the main intent
here is to enable following patches that use this function to replace
acpi_map_pxm_to_node() for non SRAT usecases which should return
NO_NUMA_NODE for PXM entries not matching with those in SRAT.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
drivers/acpi/numa.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa.c b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
index eadbf90e65d14..85e01752fbe47 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/numa.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ int acpi_numa __initdata;
int pxm_to_node(int pxm)
{
- if (pxm < 0)
+ if (pxm < 0 || pxm >= MAX_PXM_DOMAINS || numa_off)
return NUMA_NO_NODE;
return pxm_to_node_map[pxm];
}
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 52/80] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3
[not found] <20201026235516.1025100-1-sashal@kernel.org>
2020-10-26 23:54 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 46/80] ACPI: Add out of bounds and numa_off protections to pxm_to_node() Sasha Levin
@ 2020-10-26 23:54 ` Sasha Levin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2020-10-26 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, stable
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Rafael J . Wysocki, Sasha Levin, linux-acpi
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
[ Upstream commit 2c5b9bde95c96942f2873cea6ef383c02800e4a8 ]
In ACPI 6.3, the Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure
changed substantially. One of those changes was that the flag
for "Memory Proximity Domain field is valid" was deprecated.
This was because the field "Proximity Domain for the Memory"
became a required field and hence having a validity flag makes
no sense.
So the correct logic is to always assume the field is there.
Current code assumes it never is.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
drivers/acpi/hmat/hmat.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/hmat/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/hmat/hmat.c
index 8b0de8a3c6470..0f1c939b7e901 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/hmat/hmat.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/hmat/hmat.c
@@ -403,7 +403,8 @@ static int __init hmat_parse_proximity_domain(union acpi_subtable_headers *heade
pr_info("HMAT: Memory Flags:%04x Processor Domain:%d Memory Domain:%d\n",
p->flags, p->processor_PD, p->memory_PD);
- if (p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) {
+ if ((hmat_revision == 1 && p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID) ||
+ hmat_revision > 1) {
target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD);
if (!target) {
pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread