[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877d63tleq.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 12:33:17 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@...il.com>,
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: mainline build failure due to f1e4c916f97f ("drm/edid: add EDID
block count and size helpers")
On Mon, 30 May 2022, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 11:59 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's CONFIG_ARM_AEABI, which is normally set everywhere. Without this
>>> option, you the kernel is built for the old 'OABI' that forces all non-packed
>>> struct members to be at least 16-bit aligned.
>>
>> Looks like forced word (32 bit) alignment to me.
>>
>> I wonder how many other structures that messes up, but I committed the
>> EDID fix for now.
>
> Thanks for the fix, and the thorough commit message!
>
>> This has presumably been broken for a long time, but maybe the
>> affected targets don't typically use EDID and kernel modesetting, and
>> only use some fixed display setup instead.
>>
>> Those structure definitions go back a _loong_ time (from a quick 'git
>> blame' I see November 2008).
>>
>> But despite that, I did not mark my fix 'cc:stable' because I don't
>> know if any of those machines affected by this bad arm ABI issue could
>> possibly care.
>>
>> At least my tree hopefully now builds on them, with the BUILD_BUG_ON()
>> that uncovered this.
>
> Indeed the bug is ancient. I just threw in the BUILD_BUG_ON() on a whim
> as an extra sanity check when doing pointer arithmetics on struct edid
> *.
>
> If there are affected machines, buffer overflows are the real danger due
> to edid->extensions indicating the number of extensions.
That is, for EDID. Makes you wonder about all the other packed structs
with enum members across the kernel.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists