From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Rodrigo.Siqueira@amd.com,
Harry.Wentland@amd.com, khsieh@codeaurora.org, Jerry.Zuo@amd.com,
alexander.deucher@amd.com, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/edid: In connector_bad_edid() cap num_of_ext by num_blocks read
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 18:46:39 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YVxzX9h+jBqOj1/V@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211005081022.1.Ib059f9c23c2611cb5a9d760e7d0a700c1295928d@changeid>
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 08:10:28AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> In commit e11f5bd8228f ("drm: Add support for DP 1.4 Compliance edid
> corruption test") the function connector_bad_edid() started assuming
> that the memory for the EDID passed to it was big enough to hold
> `edid[0x7e] + 1` blocks of data (1 extra for the base block). It
> completely ignored the fact that the function was passed `num_blocks`
> which indicated how much memory had been allocated for the EDID.
>
> Let's fix this by adding a bounds check.
>
> This is important for handling the case where there's an error in the
> first block of the EDID. In that case we will call
> connector_bad_edid() without having re-allocated memory based on
> `edid[0x7e]`.
>
> Fixes: e11f5bd8228f ("drm: Add support for DP 1.4 Compliance edid corruption test")
> Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> This problem report came up in the context of a patch I sent out [1]
> and this is my attempt at a fix. The problem predates my patch,
> though. I don't personally know anything about DP compliance testing
> and what should be happening here, nor do I apparently have any
> hardware that actually reports a bad EDID. Thus this is just compile
> tested. I'm hoping that someone here can test this and make sure it
> seems OK to them.
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> index 9b19eee0e1b4..ccfa08631c57 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> @@ -1843,8 +1843,9 @@ static void connector_bad_edid(struct drm_connector *connector,
> u8 num_of_ext = edid[0x7e];
>
> /* Calculate real checksum for the last edid extension block data */
> - connector->real_edid_checksum =
> - drm_edid_block_checksum(edid + num_of_ext * EDID_LENGTH);
> + if (num_of_ext <= num_blocks - 1)
Something about that doesn't really agree with my brain.
It's correct but when I read it I can't immediately see it.
I guess what I'd like to see is something like:
last_block = edid[0x7e];
if (last_block < num_blocks)
connector->real_edid_checksum =
drm_edid_block_checksum(edid + last_block * EDID_LENGTH);
Techically exactly the same thing, but I don't have to read
the comparison twice to convince myself that it's correct.
Anyways, this is
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
either way.
> + connector->real_edid_checksum =
> + drm_edid_block_checksum(edid + num_of_ext * EDID_LENGTH);
>
> if (connector->bad_edid_counter++ && !drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_KMS))
> return;
> --
> 2.33.0.800.g4c38ced690-goog
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-05 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-05 15:10 [PATCH] drm/edid: In connector_bad_edid() cap num_of_ext by num_blocks read Douglas Anderson
2021-10-05 15:46 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2021-10-06 2:30 ` Doug Anderson
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=YVxzX9h+jBqOj1/V@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Harry.Wentland@amd.com \
--cc=Jerry.Zuo@amd.com \
--cc=Rodrigo.Siqueira@amd.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=khsieh@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mripard@kernel.org \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
/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