Re: [PATCH vulns 0/1] change the sha1 for CVE-2024-26661

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 12:04:54PM +0000, Hao, Qingfeng wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> Thanks for your check and comments. Sorry that I mistakenly changed 
> the files of .dyad and .json. I'll pay attention next time. 
> The original fix 66951d98d9bf ("drm/amd/display: Add NULL test for 'timing generator' in 'dcn21_set_pipe()'") 
> or fb5a3d037082 for CVE-2024-26661 didn't fix the CVE (or even made it worse) because the key change 
> is to check if “tg” is NULL before referencing it, but the fix does NOT do that correctly:
> +       if (!abm && !tg && !panel_cntl) 
> +               return; 
> Here "&&" should have been "||".
> The follow-up commit 17ba9cde11c2 fixes this by:
> -       if (!abm && !tg && !panel_cntl) 
> +       if (!abm || !tg || !panel_cntl) 
>                 return; 
> So we consider that 66951d98d9bf is not a complete fix. It actually made things worse.
> 66951d98d9bf and 17ba9cde11c2 together fix CVE-2024-26661.
> The same problem happened to CVE-2024-26662.
> If you agree with the above analysis, should I append 17ba9cde11c2bfebbd70867b0a2ac4a22e573379 to CVE-2024-26661.sha1 ? 

I think that the original CVE should just be rejected and a new one
added for the other sha1 you have pointed out that actually fixes the
issue because the first one does not do anything.  Is that ok?

thanks,

greg k-h