Re: CVE-2024-42308: drm/amd/display: Check for NULL pointer

Re: CVE-2024-42308: drm/amd/display: Check for NULL pointer

[Siddh Raman Pant]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 956 bytes --]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:10:13 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> 
> drm/amd/display: Check for NULL pointer
> 
> [why & how]
> Need to make sure plane_state is initialized
> before accessing its members.
> 
> (cherry picked from commit 295d91cbc700651782a60572f83c24861607b648)
> 
> The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2024-42308 to this issue.

This commit is no-op / doesn't make any difference, as there is an
implicit NULL check rigth above it, as plane_state cannot be NULL
(checked at the start of function).

So this CVE should be invalid.

> Affected and fixed versions
> ===========================
> 
> 	Fixed in 6.1.103 with commit f068494430d1
> 	Fixed in 6.6.44 with commit 4ccd37085976
> 	Fixed in 6.10.3 with commit 185616085b12
> 	Fixed in 6.11-rc1 with commit 4ab68e168ae1

This also got backported to older kernels.

Thanks,
Siddh

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: CVE-2024-42308: drm/amd/display: Check for NULL pointer

[gregkh]

On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:01:59AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:10:13 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> > 
> > drm/amd/display: Check for NULL pointer
> > 
> > [why & how]
> > Need to make sure plane_state is initialized
> > before accessing its members.
> > 
> > (cherry picked from commit 295d91cbc700651782a60572f83c24861607b648)
> > 
> > The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2024-42308 to this issue.
> 
> This commit is no-op / doesn't make any difference, as there is an
> implicit NULL check rigth above it, as plane_state cannot be NULL
> (checked at the start of function).
> 
> So this CVE should be invalid.

Yeah, tricky code, I see why the static tools got this wrong.  I'll go
invalidate this now, thanks for the report!

greg k-h