linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/rockchip: vop: Don't crash for invalid duplicate

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:37:50 +0200
From:   Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sandy Huang <hjc@...k-chips.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/rockchip: vop: Don't crash for invalid duplicate_state()

Am Freitag, 24. Juni 2022, 19:57:53 CEST schrieb Brian Norris:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:23 AM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
> > The interesting question would be, do we want some fixes tag for it?
> 
> I'm not aware of any currently-upstream code that will hit this [1].
> I've hit it in out-of-tree code (or, code that I submitted to
> dri-devel, but wasn't accepted as-is), and this is the "belt and
> braces" part -- the primary fix is that we should avoid calling things
> like drm_atomic_get_crtc_state() at inappropriate times.
> 
> So, is the "extra safety" check really something that should go to
> -stable? (Because let's be honest, everything with a Fixes tag goes
> there.) Maybe?
> 
> Anyway, if you want to "blame" anything, this commit actually dropped
> the safety check:
> 
> 4e257d9eee23 drm/rockchip: get rid of rockchip_drm_crtc_mode_config

I tend to think, if we know that connection we should also include it :-) .
I wouldn't include a cc-stable for the reason you mentioned, but to me
it makes sense if someone reading the git history in the future can easily
know that information - so it doesn't hurt :-) .

So I'll add that when applying.

Thanks for supplying the origin commit
Heiko

> 
> Brian
> 
> [1] But I'm not omniscient. So maybe it's good to have anyway.
>