Re: [PATCH] drm/atomic: fix out of bounds read in for_each_*_in_state helpers

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 04:52:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 May 2015, Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 05/25/2015 04:12 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 25 May 2015, Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> for_each_*_in_state validate array index after
> >>>> access to array elements, thus perform out of bounds read.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix this by validating index in the first place and read
> >>>> array element iff validation was successful.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: df63b9994eaf ("drm/atomic: Add for_each_{connector,crtc,plane}_in_state helper macros")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  include/drm/drm_atomic.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> >>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_atomic.h b/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
> >>>> index c1571034..3f13b91 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_atomic.h
> >>>> @@ -77,26 +77,26 @@ int __must_check drm_atomic_async_commit(struct drm_atomic_state *state);
> >>>>  
> >>>>  #define for_each_connector_in_state(state, connector, connector_state, __i) \
> >>>>  	for ((__i) = 0;							\
> >>>> -	     (connector) = (state)->connectors[__i],			\
> >>>> -	     (connector_state) = (state)->connector_states[__i],	\
> >>>> -	     (__i) < (state)->num_connector;				\
> >>>> +	     (__i) < (state)->num_connector &&				\
> >>>> +	     ((connector) = (state)->connectors[__i],			\
> >>>> +	     (connector_state) = (state)->connector_states[__i], 1); 	\
> >>> 
> >>> This will stop at the first NULL connector/connector_state. Similarly
> >>> for the loops below.
> >>> 
> >>
> >> This will stop iff (__i) >= (state)->num_connector, because the result of expression:
> >> 	 ((connector) = (state)->connectors[__i], (connector_state) = (state)->connector_states[__i], 1)
> >> is always 1.
> >
> > Why do you think it'll always be 1?
> 
> That might be because there's the 1 at the end. *blush*.
> 
> I do wonder if this is too subtle in general, or if it's just too subtle
> for me.

s/1/true/ might make it a bit less subtle, but not by much.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/