From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Pavitra Jha" <jhapavitra98@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu/discovery: fix OOB read via unchecked die_offset in IP discovery parsing
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 18:44:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260624184444.D4A401F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260624183409.1079288-1-jhapavitra98@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The patch identifies but fails to fix out-of-bounds reads caused by unbounded ip_offset advancement.
- [High] Missing bounds check for firmware-controlled num_dies before accessing the die_info array.
- [High] Missing bounds checks for basic header offsets in the discovery binary parser.
--
commit 9d6788c99594a0d1857e6cde0b70c40338a5e49f
Author: Pavitra Jha <jhapavitra98@gmail.com>
drm/amdgpu/discovery: fix OOB read via unchecked die_offset in IP discovery parsing
This commit adds bounds checking for die_offset against adev->discovery.size
in three IP discovery parsing functions. It aims to prevent out-of-bounds
reads when processing firmware-controlled die_offset values.
> The ip_offset advancement inside the inner loop also uses
> struct_size(ip, base_address, ip->num_base_address) where
> num_base_address is firmware-controlled, enabling unbounded advancement
> past the allocation on each iteration.
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but the commit message identifies this unbounded
advancement as a root cause, yet the patch doesn't seem to include a bounds
check for it in the loop.
Should there be a check against adev->discovery.size for ip_offset inside the
inner loop as well, to prevent reading past the end of the allocation when
dereferencing the advanced ip_offset?
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c
> index be5069642a907..41ca01e2bb6fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c
> @@ -774,6 +774,11 @@ static void amdgpu_discovery_read_harvest_bit_per_ip(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> /* scan harvest bit of all IP data structures */
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does the construction of the ihdr pointer
lack bounds checking?
In amdgpu_discovery_read_harvest_bit_per_ip(), ihdr is constructed using an
unchecked offset:
ihdr = (struct ip_discovery_header *)(discovery_bin +
le16_to_cpu(bhdr->table_list[IP_DISCOVERY].offset));
Could an invalid firmware-provided offset cause an out-of-bounds read when
ihdr is later dereferenced?
> for (i = 0; i < num_dies; i++) {
> die_offset = le16_to_cpu(ihdr->die_info[i].die_offset);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but is it possible for num_dies to exceed the
fixed array size of 16 for die_info?
Since num_dies is firmware-controlled, could an unchecked value cause an
out-of-bounds read when accessing ihdr->die_info[i]?
> + if (die_offset + sizeof(*dhdr) > adev->discovery.size) {
> + dev_err(adev->dev, "invalid die_offset %u in harvest table\n",
> + die_offset);
> + return;
> + }
> dhdr = (struct die_header *)(discovery_bin + die_offset);
> num_ips = le16_to_cpu(dhdr->num_ips);
> ip_offset = die_offset + sizeof(*dhdr);
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260624183409.1079288-1-jhapavitra98@gmail.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-24 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-24 18:34 [PATCH] drm/amdgpu/discovery: fix OOB read via unchecked die_offset in IP discovery parsing Pavitra Jha
2026-06-24 18:44 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-08 6:18 ` [PATCH v2] drm/amdgpu/discovery: validate table offset before IP discovery header cast Pavitra Jha
2026-07-08 6:30 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-08 14:54 ` Alex Deucher
2026-07-08 15:35 ` Pavitra Jha
2026-08-12 9:03 ` kernel test robot
2026-08-12 20:46 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260624184444.D4A401F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jhapavitra98@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox