[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130313202858.GD1896@bremse>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:28:58 +0100
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>, marcheu@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915: bounds check execbuffer relocation count
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:46AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate the buffer for
> > relocation copies. This could lead to heap writing overflows.
> >
> > CVE-2013-0913
> >
> > v3: collapse test, improve comment
> > v2: move check into validate_exec_list
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > Reported-by: Pinkie Pie
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>
> Looks good to me. The only bikeshed that remains is whether we should
> just collapse the two variables into one, but the current 'max - count'
> is more idiomatic and so preferrable.
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Picked up for -fixes, thanks for the patch.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists