From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@samsung.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc: Ander Conselvan de Oliveira
<ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/atomic: fix out of bounds read in for_each_*_in_state helpers
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 17:03:25 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fv6kiwk2.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87iobgix28.fsf@intel.com>
On Mon, 25 May 2015, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2015, Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@samsung.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/25/2015 04:12 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2015, Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>> for_each_*_in_state validate array index after
>>>>> access to array elements, thus perform out of bounds read.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix this by validating index in the first place and read
>>>>> array element iff validation was successful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: df63b9994eaf ("drm/atomic: Add for_each_{connector,crtc,plane}_in_state helper macros")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@samsung.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> include/drm/drm_atomic.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_atomic.h b/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
>>>>> index c1571034..3f13b91 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
>>>>> @@ -77,26 +77,26 @@ int __must_check drm_atomic_async_commit(struct drm_atomic_state *state);
>>>>>
>>>>> #define for_each_connector_in_state(state, connector, connector_state, __i) \
>>>>> for ((__i) = 0; \
>>>>> - (connector) = (state)->connectors[__i], \
>>>>> - (connector_state) = (state)->connector_states[__i], \
>>>>> - (__i) < (state)->num_connector; \
>>>>> + (__i) < (state)->num_connector && \
>>>>> + ((connector) = (state)->connectors[__i], \
>>>>> + (connector_state) = (state)->connector_states[__i], 1); \
>>>>
>>>> This will stop at the first NULL connector/connector_state. Similarly
>>>> for the loops below.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This will stop iff (__i) >= (state)->num_connector, because the result of expression:
>>> ((connector) = (state)->connectors[__i], (connector_state) = (state)->connector_states[__i], 1)
>>> is always 1.
>>
>> Why do you think it'll always be 1?
>
> That might be because there's the 1 at the end. *blush*.
>
> I do wonder if this is too subtle in general, or if it's just too subtle
> for me.
So in the mean time, I was looking at doing the below, not because of
this patch or the bug it fixes, but because I think the construct
for (...) \
if (...)
in a for_something() style macro is a dangling else disaster waiting to
happen.
It's a bit tedious, I admit, and apparently makes some gcc versions
whine about using uninitialized variables, because they're not smart
enough to realize the pointers are initialized when the loop condition
is met.
BR,
Jani.
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_atomic.h b/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
index e89db0c377ba..eb81f5930a8c 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
@@ -134,28 +134,70 @@ int __must_check drm_atomic_check_only(struct drm_atomic_state *state);
int __must_check drm_atomic_commit(struct drm_atomic_state *state);
int __must_check drm_atomic_async_commit(struct drm_atomic_state *state);
+static inline int next_connector(struct drm_connector **pconnector,
+ struct drm_connector **connectors,
+ struct drm_connector_state **pstate,
+ struct drm_connector_state **states,
+ int index, int max)
+{
+ while (index < max && (connectors[index] == NULL || states[index] == NULL))
+ index++;
+
+ if (index < max) {
+ *pconnector = connectors[index];
+ *pstate = states[index];
+ }
+
+ return index;
+}
+
+static inline int next_crtc(struct drm_crtc **pcrtc,
+ struct drm_crtc **crtcs,
+ struct drm_crtc_state **pstate,
+ struct drm_crtc_state **states,
+ int index, int max)
+{
+ while (index < max && (crtcs[index] == NULL || states[index] == NULL))
+ index++;
+
+ if (index < max) {
+ *pcrtc = crtcs[index];
+ *pstate = states[index];
+ }
+
+ return index;
+}
+
+static inline int next_plane(struct drm_plane **pplane,
+ struct drm_plane **planes,
+ struct drm_plane_state **pstate,
+ struct drm_plane_state **states,
+ int index, int max)
+{
+ while (index < max && (planes[index] == NULL || states[index] == NULL))
+ index++;
+
+ if (index < max) {
+ *pplane = planes[index];
+ *pstate = states[index];
+ }
+
+ return index;
+}
+
#define for_each_connector_in_state(state, connector, connector_state, __i) \
- for ((__i) = 0; \
- (connector) = (state)->connectors[__i], \
- (connector_state) = (state)->connector_states[__i], \
+ for ((__i) = next_connector(&(connector), (state)->connectors, &(connector_state), (state)->connector_states, 0, (state)->num_connector); \
(__i) < (state)->num_connector; \
- (__i)++) \
- if (connector)
-
-#define for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, __i) \
- for ((__i) = 0; \
- (crtc) = (state)->crtcs[__i], \
- (crtc_state) = (state)->crtc_states[__i], \
- (__i) < (state)->dev->mode_config.num_crtc; \
- (__i)++) \
- if (crtc_state)
-
-#define for_each_plane_in_state(state, plane, plane_state, __i) \
- for ((__i) = 0; \
- (plane) = (state)->planes[__i], \
- (plane_state) = (state)->plane_states[__i], \
- (__i) < (state)->dev->mode_config.num_total_plane; \
- (__i)++) \
- if (plane_state)
+ (__i) = next_connector(&(connector), (state)->connectors, &(connector_state), (state)->connector_states, (__i), (state)->num_connector))
+
+#define for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, __i) \
+ for ((__i) = next_crtc(&(crtc), (state)->crtcs, &(crtc_state), (state)->crtc_states, 0, (state)->dev->mode_config.num_crtc); \
+ (__i) < (state)->dev->mode_config.num_crtc; \
+ (__i) = next_crtc(&crtc, (state)->crtcs, &(crtc_state), (state)->crtc_states, (__i), (state)->dev->mode_config.num_crtc))
+
+#define for_each_plane_in_state(state, plane, plane_state, __i) \
+ for ((__i) = next_plane(&(plane), (state)->planes, &(plane_state), (state)->plane_states, 0, (state)->dev->mode_config.num_total_plane); \
+ (__i) < (state)->dev->mode_config.num_total_plane; \
+ (__i) = next_plane(&(plane), (state)->planes, &(plane_state), (state)->plane_states, (__i), (state)->dev->mode_config.num_total_plane))
#endif /* DRM_ATOMIC_H_ */
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-25 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-25 10:29 [PATCH] drm/atomic: fix out of bounds read in for_each_*_in_state helpers Andrey Ryabinin
2015-05-25 13:12 ` Jani Nikula
2015-05-25 13:25 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-05-25 13:50 ` Jani Nikula
2015-05-25 13:52 ` Jani Nikula
2015-05-25 13:57 ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-05-25 14:03 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2015-05-26 15:32 ` Daniel Vetter
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=87fv6kiwk2.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=a.ryabinin@samsung.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=ander.conselvan.de.oliveira@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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