* [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Avoid possible buffer overflow
@ 2023-06-06 7:55 Su Hui
2023-06-06 15:28 ` Doug Anderson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Su Hui @ 2023-06-06 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Douglas Anderson, Andrzej Hajda, Neil Armstrong, Robert Foss,
Laurent Pinchart, Jonas Karlman, Jernej Skrabec, David Airlie,
Daniel Vetter
Cc: u.kleine-koenig, andersson, dri-devel, linux-kernel, Su Hui
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@nfschina.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];
}
static void ti_sn65dsi86_enable_comms(struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata)
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Avoid possible buffer overflow
2023-06-06 7:55 [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Avoid possible buffer overflow Su Hui
@ 2023-06-06 15:28 ` Doug Anderson
2023-06-07 0:50 ` Longsuhui
2023-06-07 1:17 ` Su Hui
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Doug Anderson @ 2023-06-06 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Su Hui
Cc: Andrzej Hajda, Neil Armstrong, Robert Foss, Laurent Pinchart,
Jonas Karlman, Jernej Skrabec, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter,
andersson, linux-kernel, dri-devel, u.kleine-koenig
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 12:56 AM Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.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@nfschina.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.
[1] https://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/sn65dsi86
-Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Avoid possible buffer overflow
2023-06-06 15:28 ` Doug Anderson
@ 2023-06-07 0:50 ` Longsuhui
2023-06-07 1:17 ` Su Hui
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Longsuhui @ 2023-06-07 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Anderson
Cc: Andrzej Hajda, Neil Armstrong, Robert Foss, Laurent Pinchart,
Jonas Karlman, Jernej Skrabec, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter,
andersson, linux-kernel, dri-devel, u.kleine-koenig
Hi,
On 2023/6/6 23:28, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 12:56 AM Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.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@nfschina.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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Avoid possible buffer overflow
2023-06-06 15:28 ` Doug Anderson
2023-06-07 0:50 ` Longsuhui
@ 2023-06-07 1:17 ` Su Hui
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Su Hui @ 2023-06-07 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Anderson
Cc: Andrzej Hajda, Neil Armstrong, Robert Foss, Laurent Pinchart,
Jonas Karlman, Jernej Skrabec, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter,
andersson, linux-kernel, dri-devel, u.kleine-koenig
Hi,
On 2023/6/6 23:28, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 12:56 AM Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.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@nfschina.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, set i to 1 if i >= refclk_lut_size. I will resend
this patch soon.
Thanks for your reply!
Su Hui
>
> [1] https://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/sn65dsi86
>
> -Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-06-07 1:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-06-06 7:55 [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Avoid possible buffer overflow Su Hui
2023-06-06 15:28 ` Doug Anderson
2023-06-07 0:50 ` Longsuhui
2023-06-07 1:17 ` Su Hui
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).