[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPM=9txw7pPT195p1nJrr5=TvTBGsd6G+a7N5C+fxQgP0Eof3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:42:58 +1000
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Ben Widawsky <ben@...dawsk.net>,
Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Sanity check incoming ioctl data
for a NULL pointer
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 08:50:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > If *userspace* doesn't request either IOC_IN | IOC_OUT in their ioctl
>> > command (which are seperate from the ioctl number), then kdata is set to
>> > NULL.
>>
>> Doesn't that mean that we need these checks everywhere? Or at least a
>> fixup in drm core proper?
>
> That's my conclusion. We either add a flag to ask drm_ioctl to prevent
> passing NULL pointers (as the existing behaviour may be useful
> somewhere, and I have not checked all callees) or saturate our callbacks
> with NULL checks.
Do we have the kernel's expected IOC_IN/IOC_OUT flags at that point as well?
we could check them and block NULL in that case.
Dave.
--
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