--- /dev/null
+From eb087f305919ee8169ad65665610313e74260463 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
+Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:06:46 -0600
+Subject: ACPI: processor idle: Check for architectural support for LPI
+
+From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
+
+commit eb087f305919ee8169ad65665610313e74260463 upstream.
+
+When `osc_pc_lpi_support_confirmed` is set through `_OSC` and `_LPI` is
+populated then the cpuidle driver assumes that LPI is fully functional.
+
+However currently the kernel only provides architectural support for LPI
+on ARM. This leads to high power consumption on X86 platforms that
+otherwise try to enable LPI.
+
+So probe whether or not LPI support is implemented before enabling LPI in
+the kernel. This is done by overloading `acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe` to
+check whether it returns `-EOPNOTSUPP`. It also means that all future
+implementations of `acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe` will need to follow
+these semantics as well.
+
+Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
+Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
+Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
+ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
++++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
+@@ -1080,6 +1080,11 @@ static int flatten_lpi_states(struct acp
+ return 0;
+ }
+
++int __weak acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(unsigned int cpu)
++{
++ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
++}
++
+ static int acpi_processor_get_lpi_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
+ {
+ int ret, i;
+@@ -1088,6 +1093,11 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_lpi_info(s
+ struct acpi_device *d = NULL;
+ struct acpi_lpi_states_array info[2], *tmp, *prev, *curr;
+
++ /* make sure our architecture has support */
++ ret = acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(pr->id);
++ if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
++ return ret;
++
+ if (!osc_pc_lpi_support_confirmed)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+@@ -1139,11 +1149,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_lpi_info(s
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+-int __weak acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(unsigned int cpu)
+-{
+- return -ENODEV;
+-}
+-
+ int __weak acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_enter(struct acpi_lpi_state *lpi)
+ {
+ return -ENODEV;
--- /dev/null
+From 01f6c7338ce267959975da65d86ba34f44d54220 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
+Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:06:45 -0600
+Subject: cpuidle: PSCI: Move the `has_lpi` check to the beginning of the function
+
+From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
+
+commit 01f6c7338ce267959975da65d86ba34f44d54220 upstream.
+
+Currently the first thing checked is whether the PCSI cpu_suspend function
+has been initialized.
+
+Another change will be overloading `acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe` and
+calling it sooner. So make the `has_lpi` check the first thing checked
+to prepare for that change.
+
+Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
+Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
+Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ arch/arm64/kernel/cpuidle.c | 6 +++---
+ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuidle.c
++++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuidle.c
+@@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ static int psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(unsig
+ struct acpi_lpi_state *lpi;
+ struct acpi_processor *pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu);
+
++ if (unlikely(!pr || !pr->flags.has_lpi))
++ return -EINVAL;
++
+ /*
+ * If the PSCI cpu_suspend function hook has not been initialized
+ * idle states must not be enabled, so bail out
+@@ -61,9 +64,6 @@ static int psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(unsig
+ if (!psci_ops.cpu_suspend)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+- if (unlikely(!pr || !pr->flags.has_lpi))
+- return -EINVAL;
+-
+ count = pr->power.count - 1;
+ if (count <= 0)
+ return -ENODEV;
--- /dev/null
+From 0b9111922b1f399aba6ed1e1b8f2079c3da1aed8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Lin Ma <linma@zju.edu.cn>
+Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:37:59 +0800
+Subject: hamradio: defer 6pack kfree after unregister_netdev
+
+From: Lin Ma <linma@zju.edu.cn>
+
+commit 0b9111922b1f399aba6ed1e1b8f2079c3da1aed8 upstream.
+
+There is a possible race condition (use-after-free) like below
+
+ (USE) | (FREE)
+ dev_queue_xmit |
+ __dev_queue_xmit |
+ __dev_xmit_skb |
+ sch_direct_xmit | ...
+ xmit_one |
+ netdev_start_xmit | tty_ldisc_kill
+ __netdev_start_xmit | 6pack_close
+ sp_xmit | kfree
+ sp_encaps |
+ |
+
+According to the patch "defer ax25 kfree after unregister_netdev", this
+patch reorder the kfree after the unregister_netdev to avoid the possible
+UAF as the unregister_netdev() is well synchronized and won't return if
+there is a running routine.
+
+Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <linma@zju.edu.cn>
+Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
+Signed-off-by: Xu Jia <xujia39@huawei.com>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c | 4 +++-
+ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
+
+--- a/drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c
++++ b/drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c
+@@ -679,9 +679,11 @@ static void sixpack_close(struct tty_str
+ del_timer_sync(&sp->tx_t);
+ del_timer_sync(&sp->resync_t);
+
+- /* Free all 6pack frame buffers. */
++ /* Free all 6pack frame buffers after unreg. */
+ kfree(sp->rbuff);
+ kfree(sp->xbuff);
++
++ free_netdev(sp->dev);
+ }
+
+ /* Perform I/O control on an active 6pack channel. */
--- /dev/null
+From 81b1d548d00bcd028303c4f3150fa753b9b8aa71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Lin Ma <linma@zju.edu.cn>
+Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 22:14:02 +0800
+Subject: hamradio: remove needs_free_netdev to avoid UAF
+
+From: Lin Ma <linma@zju.edu.cn>
+
+commit 81b1d548d00bcd028303c4f3150fa753b9b8aa71 upstream.
+
+The former patch "defer 6pack kfree after unregister_netdev" reorders
+the kfree of two buffer after the unregister_netdev to prevent the race
+condition. It also adds free_netdev() function in sixpack_close(), which
+is a direct copy from the similar code in mkiss_close().
+
+However, in sixpack driver, the flag needs_free_netdev is set to true in
+sp_setup(), hence the unregister_netdev() will free the netdev
+automatically. Therefore, as the sp is netdev_priv, use-after-free
+occurs.
+
+This patch removes the needs_free_netdev = true and just let the
+free_netdev to finish this deallocation task.
+
+Fixes: 0b9111922b1f ("hamradio: defer 6pack kfree after unregister_netdev")
+Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <linma@zju.edu.cn>
+Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211111141402.7551-1-linma@zju.edu.cn
+Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
+Signed-off-by: Xu Jia <xujia39@huawei.com>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c | 1 -
+ 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
+
+--- a/drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c
++++ b/drivers/net/hamradio/6pack.c
+@@ -311,7 +311,6 @@ static void sp_setup(struct net_device *
+ {
+ /* Finish setting up the DEVICE info. */
+ dev->netdev_ops = &sp_netdev_ops;
+- dev->needs_free_netdev = true;
+ dev->mtu = SIXP_MTU;
+ dev->hard_header_len = AX25_MAX_HEADER_LEN;
+ dev->header_ops = &ax25_header_ops;
drm-amdkfd-use-drm_priv-to-pass-vm-from-kfd-to-amdgpu.patch
+hamradio-defer-6pack-kfree-after-unregister_netdev.patch
+hamradio-remove-needs_free_netdev-to-avoid-uaf.patch
+cpuidle-psci-move-the-has_lpi-check-to-the-beginning-of-the-function.patch
+acpi-processor-idle-check-for-architectural-support-for-lpi.patch
projects / thirdparty / kernel / stable-queue.git / commitdiff
