The security-version-number check should be used rather
than the runtime version check for driver update. Otherwise
the firmware update would fail when the update binary
has a lower number of the runtime version than the
current one.
Reported-by: "Govindarajulu, Hariganesh" <hariganesh.govindarajulu@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c | 2 +-
include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c b/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
index 031d1ba81b86..08b9b2bc2d97 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pfr_update.c
@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static bool applicable_image(const void *data, struct pfru_update_cap_info *cap,
if (type == PFRU_CODE_INJECT_TYPE)
return payload_hdr->rt_ver >= cap->code_rt_version;
- return payload_hdr->rt_ver >= cap->drv_rt_version;
+ return payload_hdr->svn_ver >= cap->drv_svn;
}
static void print_update_debug_info(struct pfru_updated_result *result,
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h b/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
index 42fa15f8310d..b77d5c210c26 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/pfrut.h
@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct pfru_payload_hdr {
__u32 hw_ver;
__u32 rt_ver;
__u8 platform_id[16];
+ __u32 svn_ver;
};
enum pfru_dsm_status {
--
2.25.1
