On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 08:19:47AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:03:54PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > When booting up on a Raspberry Pi 4 with Control Flow Integrity checking > > enabled, the following warning/panic happens: > > > > [ 1.626435] CFI failure (target: dwc2_set_bcm_params+0x0/0x4): > > [ 1.632408] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 32 at kernel/cfi.c:30 __cfi_check_fail+0x54/0x5c > > [ 1.640021] Modules linked in: > > [ 1.643137] CPU: 0 PID: 32 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc6-next-20200724-00051-g89ba619726de #1 > > [ 1.652693] Hardware name: Raspberry Pi 4 Model B Rev 1.2 (DT) > > [ 1.658637] Workqueue: events deferred_probe_work_func > > [ 1.663870] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO BTYPE=--) > > [ 1.669542] pc : __cfi_check_fail+0x54/0x5c > > [ 1.673798] lr : __cfi_check_fail+0x54/0x5c > > [ 1.678050] sp : ffff8000102bbaa0 > > [ 1.681419] x29: ffff8000102bbaa0 x28: ffffab09e21c7000 > > [ 1.686829] x27: 0000000000000402 x26: ffff0000f6e7c228 > > [ 1.692238] x25: 00000000fb7cdb0d x24: 0000000000000005 > > [ 1.697647] x23: ffffab09e2515000 x22: ffffab09e069a000 > > [ 1.703055] x21: 4c550309df1cf4c1 x20: ffffab09e2433c60 > > [ 1.708462] x19: ffffab09e160dc50 x18: ffff0000f6e8cc78 > > [ 1.713870] x17: 0000000000000041 x16: ffffab09e0bce6f8 > > [ 1.719278] x15: ffffab09e1c819b7 x14: 0000000000000003 > > [ 1.724686] x13: 00000000ffffefff x12: 0000000000000000 > > [ 1.730094] x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 00000000ffffffff > > [ 1.735501] x9 : c932f7abfc4bc600 x8 : c932f7abfc4bc600 > > [ 1.740910] x7 : 077207610770075f x6 : ffff0000f6c38f00 > > [ 1.746317] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 > > [ 1.751723] x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : 0000000000000000 > > [ 1.757129] x1 : ffff8000102bb7d8 x0 : 0000000000000032 > > [ 1.762539] Call trace: > > [ 1.765030] __cfi_check_fail+0x54/0x5c > > [ 1.768938] __cfi_check+0x5fa6c/0x66afc > > [ 1.772932] dwc2_init_params+0xd74/0xd78 > > [ 1.777012] dwc2_driver_probe+0x484/0x6ec > > [ 1.781180] platform_drv_probe+0xb4/0x100 > > [ 1.785350] really_probe+0x228/0x63c > > [ 1.789076] driver_probe_device+0x80/0xc0 > > [ 1.793247] __device_attach_driver+0x114/0x160 > > [ 1.797857] bus_for_each_drv+0xa8/0x128 > > [ 1.801851] __device_attach.llvm.14901095709067289134+0xc0/0x170 > > [ 1.808050] bus_probe_device+0x44/0x100 > > [ 1.812044] deferred_probe_work_func+0x78/0xb8 > > [ 1.816656] process_one_work+0x204/0x3c4 > > [ 1.820736] worker_thread+0x2f0/0x4c4 > > [ 1.824552] kthread+0x174/0x184 > > [ 1.827837] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 > > > > CFI validates that all indirect calls go to a function with the same > > exact function pointer prototype. In this case, dwc2_set_bcm_params > > is the target, which has a parameter of type 'struct dwc2_hsotg *', > > but it is being implicitly cast to have a parameter of type 'void *' > > because that is the set_params function pointer prototype. Make the > > function pointer protoype match the definitions so that there is no > > more violation. > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Why does this matter for stable kernels, given that CFI is not in any > kernel tree yet? > > thanks, > > greg k-h It might not be available upstream but it is in all downstream Android kernels. Furthermore, all of the previous CFI fixes I have done have inevitably ended up in stable trees through AUTOSEL, I figured I would save Sasha the hassle this time around. It does not personally matter to me though, I am fine with stripping the tag since I do all of my personal testing with mainline/next so if this is needed in stable later due to an OEM or someone else tripping over it, it can just be added then. Let me know if you want me to resend it without that tag. Cheers, Nathan
