[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b72ce47-c338-2061-f11a-c0a608686d8c@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:42:55 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
stanimir.k.varbanov@...il.com, agross@...nel.org,
andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
hans.verkuil@...co.com, tfiga@...omium.org
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] venus: hfi_parser: Add check to keep the number of
codecs within range
On 11/08/2023 07:04, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>
> On 8/10/2023 5:03 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> On 10/08/2023 03:25, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>> + if (hweight_long(core->dec_codecs) + hweight_long(core->enc_codecs) >
>>> MAX_CODEC_NUM)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>
>> Shouldn't this be >= ?
> Not needed. Lets take a hypothetical case when core->dec_codecs has initial 16
> (0-15) bits set and core->enc_codecs has next 16 bits (16-31) set. The bit count
> would be 32. The codec loop after this check would run on caps array index 0-31.
> I do not see a possibility for OOB access in this case.
>
>>
>> struct hfi_plat_caps caps[MAX_CODEC_NUM];
>>
>> ---
>> bod
>>
Are you not doing a general defensive coding pass in this series ie
"[PATCH v2 2/4] venus: hfi: fix the check to handle session buffer
requirement"
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists