On Friday, February 24, 2017 09:15:52 PM Seunghun Han wrote: > Hi, Rafael. > > I added my opinion below. > > 2017-02-24 20:50 GMT+09:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Friday, February 24, 2017 08:52:42 PM Seunghun Han wrote: > >> Hi, Lv Zheng. > >> > >> I added my handcrafted ACPI table under your request, because > >> "acpidump -c on" and "acpidump -c off" doesn't work. > >> > >> 2017-02-21 19:36 GMT+09:00 Seunghun Han <kkamagui@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > I attached the test results below, > >> > > >> > 2017-02-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rowafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> >> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:33:08 AM Zheng, Lv wrote: > >> >>> Hi, > >> >>> > >> >>> > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Seunghun > >> >>> > Han > >> >>> > Subject: [PATCH v2] acpi: acpica: fix acpi operand cache leak > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I'm Seunghun Han, and I work for National Security Research Institute of > >> >>> > South Korea. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I have been doing a research on ACPI and making a handcrafted ACPI table > >> >>> > for my research. > >> >>> > Errors of handcrafted ACPI tables are handled well in Linux kernel while boot > >> >>> > process, and Linux kernel goes well without critical problems. > >> >>> > But I found some ACPI operand cache leaks in ACPI early abort cases. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Boot log of ACPI operand cache leak is as follows: > >> >>> > >[ 0.174332] ACPI: Added _OSI(Module Device) > >> >>> > >[ 0.175504] ACPI: Added _OSI(Processor Device) > >> >>> > >[ 0.176010] ACPI: Added _OSI(3.0 _SCP Extensions) > >> >>> > >[ 0.177032] ACPI: Added _OSI(Processor Aggregator Device) > >> >>> > >[ 0.178284] ACPI: SCI (IRQ16705) allocation failed > >> >>> > >[ 0.179352] ACPI Exception: AE_NOT_ACQUIRED, Unable to install System Control Interrupt handler > >> >>> > (20160930/evevent-131) > >> >>> > >[ 0.180008] ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter > >> >>> > >[ 0.181125] ACPI Error: Could not remove SCI handler (20160930/evmisc-281) > >> >>> > >[ 0.184068] kmem_cache_destroy Acpi-Operand: Slab cache still has objects > >> >>> > >[ 0.185358] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.10.0-rc3 #2 > >> >>> > >[ 0.186820] Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006 > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] Call Trace: > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? dump_stack+0x5c/0x7d > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? kmem_cache_destroy+0x224/0x230 > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_sleep_proc_init+0x22/0x22 > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_os_delete_cache+0xa/0xd > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_ut_delete_caches+0x3f/0x7b > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_terminate+0x5/0xf > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? acpi_init+0x288/0x32e > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? __class_create+0x4c/0x80 > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? video_setup+0x7a/0x7a > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? do_one_initcall+0x4e/0x1b0 > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x194/0x21a > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80 > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? kernel_init+0xa/0x100 > >> >>> > >[ 0.188000] ? ret_from_fork+0x25/0x30 > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm more interested in the way of triggering AE_NOT_ACQUIRED error. > >> >>> So could you send us the handcrafted ACPI table or both the "acpidump -c on" and "acpidump -c off" output? > >> > >> I modified FACP, FACS, APIC table in VirtualBox for Linux. > >> Here are raw dumps of table. > > > > So, excuse me, but what's the security issue here? > > > > You hacked your ACPI tables into pieces which requires root privileges anyway. > > > > Thanks, > > Rafael > > > > As you mentioned earlier, I hacked my ACPI table for research, so it seems that > it is not a security issue. > > But, if new mainboard are released and they have a vendor-specific ACPI table > which has invalid data, the old version of kernel (<=4.9) will possibly expose > kernel address and KASLR will be neutralized unintentionally. But that would mean a basically non-functional system, so I'm not sure how anyone can actually take advantage of the "KASLR neutralization". > I know the vendors collaborate with Linux kernel developers, but the problem > can still occur. > > Hardware vendors release so many kinds of mainboard in a year, and the major > Linux distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) will have 4.8 kernel for a long time. > > For this reason, I think this issue has a security aspect. Well, not quite IMO. If the system needs ACPI tables and the kernel cannot use them, it just won't work no matter what. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
