Re: [PATCH v18 02/13] acpi/apei/ghes: Use raw_spinlock_t for CXL CPER work locks

"Bowman, Terry" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-cxl,dev.linux.lists.sashiko-reviews,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci
Message-ID <[email protected]>
The LOW issue is valid and the extra cancel_work_sync() needs to be 
removed. I propose we fix if a series respin is necessary or otherwise 
fix in future. 

The preexisting HIGH issues are GHES area and to be fixed by owners.

Terry 

On 7/17/2026 5:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
> 
> New issues:
> - [Low] The patch adds internal cancellation to both unregister functions but misses removing the redundant `cancel_work_sync()` for the protocol error work in `cxl_ras_exit()`.
> 
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [High] Fixed-size memcpy in cxl_cper_post_event causes an out-of-bounds read if the provided GHES CPER payload is smaller than sizeof(*rec).
> - [High] Missing bounds check on untrusted dvsec_len in cxl_cper_setup_prot_err_work_data leads to an out-of-bounds read.
> --
> 
> --- Patch [2]: [PATCH v18 02/13] acpi/apei/ghes: Use raw_spinlock_t for CXL CPER work locks ---
> commit 70fa064ce36bd35723148aab9a91c80d0fbef760
> Author: Terry Bowman <[email protected]>
> 
> acpi/apei/ghes: Use raw_spinlock_t for CXL CPER work locks
> 
> This commit converts cxl_cper_work_lock and cxl_cper_prot_err_work_lock from
> spinlock_t to raw_spinlock_t to prevent a deadlock between IRQ and process
> contexts. It also restructures registration functions to warn on double
> registration and clear work pointers before cancelling them. Redundant
> cancel_work_sync() calls are removed since quiescing is handled internally.
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
>> index 3236a3ce79d6b..ca7a138c1ff2e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> [ ... ]
>> @@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static void cxl_cper_post_prot_err(struct cxl_cper_sec_prot_err *prot_err,
>>  	if (cxl_cper_sec_prot_err_valid(prot_err))
>>  		return;
>>  
>> -	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&cxl_cper_prot_err_work_lock);
>> +	guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&cxl_cper_prot_err_work_lock);
>>  
>>  	if (!cxl_cper_prot_err_work)
>>  		return;
> 
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but does cxl_cper_setup_prot_err_work_data()
> lack bounds checking on the untrusted dvsec_len?
> 
> If firmware provides a CXL protocol error record with a maliciously large
> dvsec_len, could this lead to an out-of-bounds read when calculating
> cap_start?
> 
> drivers/acpi/apei/ghes_helpers.c:cxl_cper_setup_prot_err_work_data() {
>     ...
>     dvsec_start = (u8 *)(prot_err + 1);
>     cap_start = dvsec_start + prot_err->dvsec_len;
> 
>     memcpy(&wd->ras_cap, cap_start, sizeof(wd->ras_cap));
>     ...
> }
> 
> [ ... ]
>> @@ -831,7 +839,7 @@ static void cxl_cper_post_event(enum cxl_event_type event_type,
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&cxl_cper_work_lock);
>> +	guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&cxl_cper_work_lock);
>>  
>>  	if (!cxl_cper_work)
>>  		return;
> 
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but does cxl_cper_post_event() have an
> out-of-bounds read if the provided GHES CPER payload is smaller than
> sizeof(*rec)?
> 
> If firmware provides a CXL event record where gdata->error_data_length is
> smaller than sizeof(struct cxl_cper_event_rec), this fixed-size memcpy
> could exceed the bounds of the error status block:
> 
> drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c:cxl_cper_post_event() {
>     ...
>     wd.event_type = event_type;
>     memcpy(&wd.rec, rec, sizeof(wd.rec));
>     ...
> }
> 
> [ ... ]
>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>> index 267c679b0b3c2..7c6faee7f85ed 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>> @@ -1083,7 +1083,6 @@ static int __init cxl_pci_driver_init(void)
>>  static void __exit cxl_pci_driver_exit(void)
>>  {
>>  	cxl_cper_unregister_work(&cxl_cper_work);
>> -	cancel_work_sync(&cxl_cper_work);
>>  	pci_unregister_driver(&cxl_pci_driver);
>>  }
> 
> [Severity: Low]
> Is there a missed redundant cancel_work_sync() call in cxl_ras_exit()
> that should also be removed?
> 
> Since internal cancellation was added to the unregister functions,
> cxl_ras_exit() now has redundant synchronization:
> 
> drivers/cxl/core/ras.c:cxl_ras_exit() {
>     ...
>     cxl_cper_unregister_prot_err_work(&cxl_cper_prot_err_work);
>     cancel_work_sync(&cxl_cper_prot_err_work);
>     ...
> }
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.