From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 944B6175A96; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 11:50:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774871404; cv=none; b=pLUg5lWBYUKsseHEnIc2KS1M51kaPjMJRukgoJmvqzlWby/yViGNFJxdCUkF1qk41wf9LxWkXO5guXZKdqeYSgcE24azjqqVIWBkFS8IFSsCe9ymsaaSYtpSjUjdDMa7DMYKSv+FMm2zvKE4BBOOyAsZgzhxiCAZz9oLuh4+Mvw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774871404; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qwx+uovzcKZxcm0VDafKuZvZ8t4WfOt6isHpv35/KVI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=XjB4x4+vuX03mHseuYshpv/+YCstl2odxvIq5eHXt/vqCGAiIcYlVCcz+yIO5Tk/9JDIMTmaQXpJIQ57dT780qUDMh1A1Z/b+ifeKD9ICxUhc3S3iGNXLlRuIf/K6CG6AAxUdQAFfpR88pndolXU3iYl4WPb+NevH9Iui81lWMY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=V8+4iDnQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="V8+4iDnQ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1774871404; x=1806407404; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qwx+uovzcKZxcm0VDafKuZvZ8t4WfOt6isHpv35/KVI=; b=V8+4iDnQhYOG6kKj0+avros5ncNdSknST8zQZjrNmDcwuIC36OOB2NsA f+RQ3M9/n46ZHdKmhqFMNKbk4BBY/BytCD6iznPbbhkbvFQ0cY9R3+ktb AdRGK/QUc7/LHqVFecF1lXYkVeM50jzfh3DMk91LWezUn2aKCWEnECipa s6PKhd1im5nopvT9SNOs8xUWRzyXQHmOISZofLOWQfmopkTE8zxe6L0E2 k5kaO+eL4952GVa/LN55+ZmF7GrRijNXXqYtcmw5ci/uubD3zQKKM6FJX oPcS/44PDGOmXOS0w8FDOpp42Szv8nmT/DNUK4IQsQVEuJIOAiJNliCvV Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: u7nJZmkORxW52b03QClBaQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: V5RcPSCGQK2O6zqf/oz+AQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11743"; a="75831031" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,149,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="75831031" Received: from fmviesa003.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.143]) by orvoesa109.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Mar 2026 04:50:03 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: EZZjznjATcalu0S1+1ct0Q== X-CSE-MsgGUID: TMFDWUL5TYum9XMMwcBV5A== X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from klitkey1-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.245.245.70]) ([10.245.245.70]) by fmviesa003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Mar 2026 04:49:59 -0700 Message-ID: <3672d018-d7c2-4bdf-a130-60ed76a9e543@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:50:15 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: Don't allow pointer operations on unconfigured streams To: Mark Brown Cc: Liam Girdwood , Bard Liao , Ranjani Sridharan , Daniel Baluta , Kai Vehmanen , Pierre-Louis Bossart , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , Paul Olaru , Laurentiu Mihalcea , sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org, linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20260326-asoc-compress-tstamp-params-v1-1-3dc735b3d599@kernel.org> <3cd96fe7-4575-40f9-a1f2-610fb1fac5c1@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?P=C3=A9ter_Ujfalusi?= In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 30/03/2026 14:05, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 10:01:59AM +0300, Péter Ujfalusi wrote: > >> Should this be fixed in core level to avoid repeating the same check in >> every driver? > > I did wonder about that but wasn't sure if there might be some viable > use case, especially for things proxying through to a DSP or something. I see, but proxying or not, if there were no configuration set (the state is OPEN) then asking for avail or tstamp do not have any validity. > We don't generally guard calls based on the state the stream is in, compress does this quite much, just avail and tstamp is exempt for some reason. > and not every implementation is going to try to do the division. yeah, the SOF IPC4 compress which is under review for example is not doing this. -- Péter