linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] fbdev: i740fb: Divide error when ‘var-pixclock’ is zero

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 19:46:43 +0200
From:   Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>
To:     Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Zheyu Ma <zheyuma97@...il.com>,
        Linux Fbdev development list <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] fbdev: i740fb: Divide error when ‘var-pixclock’ is zero



On Tuesday 05 April 2022 08:33:57 Helge Deller wrote:
> Hello Geert,
> 
> On 4/4/22 13:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Helge,
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 5:41 PM Helge Deller <deller@....de> wrote:
> >> On 4/3/22 13:26, Zheyu Ma wrote:
> >>> I found a bug in the function i740fb_set_par().
> >>
> >> Nice catch!
> >>
> >>> When the user calls the ioctl system call without setting the value to
> >>> 'var->pixclock', the driver will throw a divide error.
> >>>
> >>> This bug occurs because the driver uses the value of 'var->pixclock'
> >>> without checking it, as the following code snippet show:
> >>>
> >>> if ((1000000 / var->pixclock) > DACSPEED8) {
> >>>      dev_err(info->device, "requested pixclock %i MHz out of range
> >>> (max. %i MHz at 8bpp)\n",
> >>>          1000000 / var->pixclock, DACSPEED8);
> >>>     return -EINVAL;x
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> We can fix this by checking the value of 'var->pixclock' in the
> >>> function i740fb_check_var() similar to commit
> >>> b36b242d4b8ea178f7fd038965e3cac7f30c3f09, or we should set the lowest
> >>> supported value when this field is zero.
> >>> I have no idea about which solution is better.
> >>
> >> Me neither.
> >> I think a solution like commit b36b242d4b8ea178f7fd038965e3cac7f30c3f09
> >> is sufficient.
> >>
> >> Note that i740fb_set_par() is called in i740fb_resume() as well.
> >> Since this doesn't comes form userspace I think adding a check for
> >> the return value there isn't necessary.
> >>
> >> Would you mind sending a patch like b36b242d4b8ea178f7fd038965e3cac7f30c3f09 ?
> >
> > When passed an invalid value, .check_var() is supposed to
> > round up the invalid to a valid value, if possible.
> 
> I don't disagree.
> The main problem probably is: what is the next valid value?
> This needs to be analyzed on a per-driver base and ideally tested.
> Right now a division-by-zero is tiggered which is probably more worse.

I still have an i740 card so I can test it.

> That said, currently I'd prefer to apply the zero-checks patches over
> any untested patches. It's easy to revert such checks if a better solution
> becomes available.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> > Commit b36b242d4b8ea178 ("video: fbdev: asiliantfb: Error out if
> > 'pixclock' equals zero") does not do that.
> 
> Helge
> 


-- 
Ondrej Zary