From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/8] drm/fb: More paranoia in addfb checks
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:44:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191115124411.GC1208@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191115092120.4445-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:21:13AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> - Our limit is uint32_t, make that explicit.
>
> - Untangle the one overflow check, I think (but not sure) that with
> all three together you could overflow the uint64_t and it'd look
> cool again.
It can't overflow. All theree inputs are u32 so the max value
you can get is 0xffffffff00000000.
> Hence two steps. Also go with the more common (and imo
> safer approach)
Also results in multiple divisions which is needlessly expensive.
The original is just mul+add.
> of reducing the range we accept, instead of trying
> to compute the overflow in high enough precision.
>
> - The above would blow up if we get a 0 pitches, so check for that
> too, but only if block_size is a thing.
>
> Cc: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c | 17 +++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c
> index 57564318ceea..3141c6ed6dd2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c
> @@ -214,15 +214,20 @@ static int framebuffer_check(struct drm_device *dev,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (min_pitch > UINT_MAX)
> + if (min_pitch > U8_MAX)
U8?
> return -ERANGE;
>
> - if ((uint64_t) height * r->pitches[i] + r->offsets[i] > UINT_MAX)
> - return -ERANGE;
> + if (block_size) {
> + if (r->pitches[i] < min_pitch) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("bad pitch %u for plane %d\n", r->pitches[i], i);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> - if (block_size && r->pitches[i] < min_pitch) {
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("bad pitch %u for plane %d\n", r->pitches[i], i);
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (height > U8_MAX / r->pitches[i])
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + if (r->offsets[i] > U8_MAX / r->pitches[i] - height)
> + return -ERANGE;
> }
>
> if (r->modifier[i] && !(r->flags & DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS)) {
> --
> 2.24.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/8] drm/fb: More paranoia in addfb checks
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:44:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191115124411.GC1208@intel.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20191115124411.dngANxtX-G3QF_mm1I1IDDzb7AN5QMxldJbI9WK7zmQ@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191115092120.4445-2-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:21:13AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> - Our limit is uint32_t, make that explicit.
>
> - Untangle the one overflow check, I think (but not sure) that with
> all three together you could overflow the uint64_t and it'd look
> cool again.
It can't overflow. All theree inputs are u32 so the max value
you can get is 0xffffffff00000000.
> Hence two steps. Also go with the more common (and imo
> safer approach)
Also results in multiple divisions which is needlessly expensive.
The original is just mul+add.
> of reducing the range we accept, instead of trying
> to compute the overflow in high enough precision.
>
> - The above would blow up if we get a 0 pitches, so check for that
> too, but only if block_size is a thing.
>
> Cc: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c | 17 +++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c
> index 57564318ceea..3141c6ed6dd2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c
> @@ -214,15 +214,20 @@ static int framebuffer_check(struct drm_device *dev,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (min_pitch > UINT_MAX)
> + if (min_pitch > U8_MAX)
U8?
> return -ERANGE;
>
> - if ((uint64_t) height * r->pitches[i] + r->offsets[i] > UINT_MAX)
> - return -ERANGE;
> + if (block_size) {
> + if (r->pitches[i] < min_pitch) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("bad pitch %u for plane %d\n", r->pitches[i], i);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> - if (block_size && r->pitches[i] < min_pitch) {
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("bad pitch %u for plane %d\n", r->pitches[i], i);
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (height > U8_MAX / r->pitches[i])
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + if (r->offsets[i] > U8_MAX / r->pitches[i] - height)
> + return -ERANGE;
> }
>
> if (r->modifier[i] && !(r->flags & DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS)) {
> --
> 2.24.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-15 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-15 9:21 [PATCH 0/8] fb_create drive-through cleanups Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 1/8] drm/fb: More paranoia in addfb checks Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 10:49 ` Pekka Paalanen
2019-11-15 10:49 ` [Intel-gfx] " Pekka Paalanen
2019-11-15 12:44 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2019-11-15 12:44 ` Ville Syrjälä
2019-11-15 15:26 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 15:26 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 2/8] drm/atmel: ditch fb_create wrapper Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:33 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-11-15 9:33 ` [Intel-gfx] " Boris Brezillon
2019-11-19 21:22 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-19 21:22 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-23 8:49 ` Sam Ravnborg
2019-11-23 8:49 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sam Ravnborg
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 3/8] drm/mediatek: don't open-code drm_gem_fb_create Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-22 7:42 ` CK Hu
2019-11-22 7:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " CK Hu
2019-11-22 17:09 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-22 17:09 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 4/8] drm/rockchip: Use drm_gem_fb_create_with_dirty Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-27 11:45 ` Andrzej Pietrasiewicz
2019-11-27 11:45 ` [Intel-gfx] " Andrzej Pietrasiewicz
2019-11-27 17:33 ` Andrzej Pietrasiewicz
2019-11-27 17:33 ` [Intel-gfx] " Andrzej Pietrasiewicz
2019-11-27 17:54 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-27 17:54 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 5/8] drm/tilcdc: Drop drm_gem_fb_create wrapper Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 13:21 ` Jyri Sarha
2019-11-15 13:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jyri Sarha
2019-11-19 21:25 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-19 21:25 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 6/8] drm/xen: Simplify fb_create Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 10:33 ` Oleksandr Andrushchenko
2019-11-15 10:33 ` [Intel-gfx] " Oleksandr Andrushchenko
2019-11-19 21:25 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-19 21:25 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 7/8] drm/hibmc: Use drm_gem_fb_create Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-22 8:09 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2019-11-22 8:09 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Zimmermann
2019-11-22 8:16 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2019-11-22 8:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Zimmermann
2019-11-22 9:12 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-22 9:12 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 8/8] drm/todo: Add entry for fb funcs related cleanups Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-20 10:46 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-11-20 10:46 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2019-11-15 9:30 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for fb_create drive-through cleanups Patchwork
2019-11-15 9:30 ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
2019-11-15 9:50 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2019-11-15 9:50 ` [Intel-gfx] " Patchwork
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=20191115124411.GC1208@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk \
/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