Intel-GFX Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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