From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915: bounds check execbuffer relocation count Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:28:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20130313202858.GD1896@bremse> References: <20130312003145.GA28993@www.outflux.net> <20130312090746.GD31324@cantiga.alporthouse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130312090746.GD31324@cantiga.alporthouse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Chris Wilson , Kees Cook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Vetter , David Airlie , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Julien Tinnes , marcheu@chromium.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:46AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate the buffer for > > relocation copies. This could lead to heap writing overflows. > > > > CVE-2013-0913 > > > > v3: collapse test, improve comment > > v2: move check into validate_exec_list > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook > > Reported-by: Pinkie Pie > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > Looks good to me. The only bikeshed that remains is whether we should > just collapse the two variables into one, but the current 'max - count' > is more idiomatic and so preferrable. > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson Picked up for -fixes, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch