[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8f1a4ca0-dde8-fa5d-bca3-d317886609de@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:41:37 +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 09:49, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>
> 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
But surely hweight_long(core->dec_codecs) +
hweight_long(core->enc_codecs) == MAX_CODEC_NUM is an invalid offset ?
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists