On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 05:48:28 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> When an eject request is sent to an ejected ACPI device, the following
> panic occurs:
>
> ACPI: \_SB_.SCK3.CPU3: ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST event
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000070
> IP: [<ffffffff813a7cfe>] acpi_device_hotplug+0x10b/0x33b
> :
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff813a24da>] acpi_hotplug_work_fn+0x1c/0x27
> [<ffffffff8109cbe5>] process_one_work+0x175/0x430
> [<ffffffff8109d7db>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x3a0
>
> This is becase device->handler is NULL in acpi_device_hotplug().
> This case was used to fail in acpi_hotplug_notify_cb() as the target
> had no acpi_deivce. However, acpi_device now exists after ejection.
>
> Added a check to verify if acpi_device->handler is valid for an
> eject request in acpi_hotplug_notify_cb(). Note that handler passed
> from an argument is still valid while acpi_device->handler is NULL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 7384158..5cf6adf 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -484,7 +484,6 @@ static void acpi_device_hotplug(void *data, u32 src)
> static void acpi_hotplug_notify_cb(acpi_handle handle, u32 type, void *data)
> {
> u32 ost_code = ACPI_OST_SC_NON_SPECIFIC_FAILURE;
> - struct acpi_scan_handler *handler = data;
> struct acpi_device *adev;
> acpi_status status;
>
> @@ -500,7 +499,9 @@ static void acpi_hotplug_notify_cb(acpi_handle handle, u32 type, void *data)
> break;
> case ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST:
> acpi_handle_debug(handle, "ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST event\n");
> - if (!handler->hotplug.enabled) {
> + if (!adev->handler)
> + goto err_out;
> + if (!adev->handler->hotplug.enabled) {
> acpi_handle_err(handle, "Eject disabled\n");
> ost_code = ACPI_OST_SC_EJECT_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> goto err_out;
OK, I'll queue this up for the next pull request, but it actually isn't safe,
because adev is not really guaranteed to exist here (it might have been deleted
already when this function is running).
The series of 24 patches I've sent recently addresses this problem, but they
are 3.15 material, so we need a stop-gap for 3.14.
Thanks!
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
