linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Avoid possible buffer overflow

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]

Message-ID: <928cc71e-7b66-9cb0-7751-ce1f65489360@tom.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2023 08:50:23 +0800
From:   Longsuhui <Jack_sun@....com>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, andersson@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Avoid possible buffer overflow

Hi,

On 2023/6/6 23:28, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 12:56 AM Su Hui <suhui@...china.com> wrote:
>> Smatch error:buffer overflow 'ti_sn_bridge_refclk_lut' 5 <= 5.
>>
>> Fixes: cea86c5bb442 ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement the pwm_chip")
>> Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
>> index 7a748785c545..952aae4221e7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
>> @@ -305,7 +305,8 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_set_refclk_freq(struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata)
>>           * The PWM refclk is based on the value written to SN_DPPLL_SRC_REG,
>>           * regardless of its actual sourcing.
>>           */
>> -       pdata->pwm_refclk_freq = ti_sn_bridge_refclk_lut[i];
>> +       if (i < refclk_lut_size)
>> +               pdata->pwm_refclk_freq = ti_sn_bridge_refclk_lut[i];
> I don't think this is quite the right fix. I don't think we can just
> skip assigning "pdata->pwm_refclk_freq". In general I think we're in
> pretty bad shape if we ever fail to match a refclk from the table and
> I'm not quite sure how the bridge chip could work at all in this case.
> Probably that at least deserves a warning message in the logs. There's
> no place to return an error though, so I guess the warning is the best
> we can do and then we can do our best to do something reasonable.
>
> In this case, I think "reasonable" might be that if the for loop exits
> and "i == refclk_lut_size" that we should set "i" to 1. According to
> the datasheet [1] setting a value of 5 (which the existing code does)
> is the same as setting a value of 1 (the default) and if it's 1 then
> we'll be able to look this up in the table.
I think you are right. And " if ( i >= refclk_lut_size) i=1" is a 
suitable change.
I will send patch v2 a litter latter.
Thanks for your suggestion.

Su Hui

>
> [1] https://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/sn65dsi86
>
> -Doug