On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 04:52:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 May 2015, Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin at samsung.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/25/2015 04:12 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 25 May 2015, Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin at 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 at 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.
s/1/true/ might make it a bit less subtle, but not by much.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
