[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e880da07-ccd4-e427-ed34-20b284dc7838@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:19:05 +0530
From: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
<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 8/11/2023 2:12 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 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"
In "PATCH v2 2/4", there is a possibility if the check does not consider "=".
Here in this patch, I do not see a possibility.
>
> ---
> bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists