Hi Baolu,
> From: [email protected] [mailto:iommu-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Lu Baolu
> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 10:19 AM
> To: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>; David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
> Cc: Raj, Ashok <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/vtd: Fix NULL pointer dereference in
> prq_event_thread()
>
> When handling page request without pasid event, go to "no_pasid"
> branch instead of "bad_req". Otherwise, a NULL pointer deference will happen
> there.
>
> Cc: Ashok Raj <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jacob Pan <[email protected]>
> Cc: Sohil Mehta <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c index
> db301efe126d..887150907526 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c
> @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ static irqreturn_t prq_event_thread(int irq, void *d)
> pr_err("%s: Page request without PASID: %08llx
> %08llx\n",
> iommu->name, ((unsigned long long *)req)[0],
> ((unsigned long long *)req)[1]);
> - goto bad_req;
> + goto no_pasid;
> }
>
> if (!svm || svm->pasid != req->pasid) {
> --
I'm afraid it is still necessary to goto "bad_req". The following code behind
"bad_req" will trigger fault_cb registered by in-kernel drivers. It is
reasonable
that PRQ without PASID can be handled by such callbacks. So I would suggest
to keep the existing logic.
if (sdev && sdev->ops && sdev->ops->fault_cb) {
int rwxp = (req->rd_req << 3) | (req->wr_req << 2) |
(req->exe_req << 1) | (req->priv_req);
sdev->ops->fault_cb(sdev->dev, req->pasid, req->addr,
req->private, rwxp, result);
}
Thanks,
Yi Liu
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
