linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: video: Handle fetching EDID that is longer than 256 bytes

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: <ad625d5f-6b4b-41bb-a9c0-edb513697802@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:12:13 -0600
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
 Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@....com>, Hans de Goede
 <hdegoede@...hat.com>, "open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
 open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 Melissa Wen <mwen@...lia.com>, Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: video: Handle fetching EDID that is longer than
 256 bytes

On 1/29/2024 07:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 7:55 PM Mario Limonciello
> <mario.limonciello@....com> wrote:
>>
>> The ACPI specification allows for an EDID to be up to 512 bytes but
>> the _DDC EDID fetching code will only try up to 256 bytes.
>>
>> Modify the code to instead start at 512 bytes and work it's way
>> down instead.
>>
>> Link: https://uefi.org/htmlspecs/ACPI_Spec_6_4_html/Apx_B_Video_Extensions/output-device-specific-methods.html#ddc-return-the-edid-for-this-device
>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c
>> index 62f4364e4460..b3b15dd4755d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c
>> @@ -624,6 +624,10 @@ acpi_video_device_EDID(struct acpi_video_device *device,
>>                  arg0.integer.value = 1;
>>          else if (length == 256)
>>                  arg0.integer.value = 2;
>> +       else if (length == 384)
>> +               arg0.integer.value = 3;
>> +       else if (length == 512)
>> +               arg0.integer.value = 4;
> 
> It looks like switch () would be somewhat better.
> 
> Or maybe even
> 
> arg0.integer.value = length / 128;
> 
> The validation could be added too:
> 
> if (arg0.integer.value > 4 || arg0.integer.value * 128 != length)
>          return -EINVAL;
> 
> but it is pointless, because the caller is never passing an invalid
> number to it AFAICS.
> 

Thanks.  I'll swap over to one of these suggestions.

I will also split this patch separately from the other as the other will 
take some time with refactoring necessary in DRM that will take a cycle 
or two.

>>          else
>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>
>> @@ -1443,7 +1447,7 @@ int acpi_video_get_edid(struct acpi_device *device, int type, int device_id,
>>
>>          for (i = 0; i < video->attached_count; i++) {
>>                  video_device = video->attached_array[i].bind_info;
>> -               length = 256;
>> +               length = 512;
>>
>>                  if (!video_device)
>>                          continue;
>> @@ -1478,13 +1482,18 @@ int acpi_video_get_edid(struct acpi_device *device, int type, int device_id,
>>
>>                  if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !buffer ||
>>                      buffer->type != ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER) {
>> -                       length = 128;
>> -                       status = acpi_video_device_EDID(video_device, &buffer,
>> -                                                       length);
>> -                       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !buffer ||
>> -                           buffer->type != ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER) {
>> -                               continue;
>> +                       while (length) {
> 
> I would prefer a do {} while () loop here, which could include the
> first invocation of acpi_video_device_EDID() too (and reduce code
> duplication a bit).
> 
>> +                               length -= 128;
>> +                               status = acpi_video_device_EDID(video_device, &buffer,
>> +                                                               length);
> 
> No line break, please.
> 
>> +                               if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !buffer ||
>> +                                   buffer->type != ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER) {
>> +                                       continue;
>> +                               }
>> +                               break;
>>                          }
>> +                       if (!length)
>> +                               continue;
>>                  }
>>
>>                  *edid = buffer->buffer.pointer;
>> --