From: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@quicinc.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.k.varbanov@gmail.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
<linux-media@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] media: venus: hfi_parser: add check to avoid out of bound access
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:32:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2b31dbc-2681-1bd8-e013-d65ec52bbf1a@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <37982a05-2057-45f4-923e-7562c683706d@linaro.org>
On 11/8/2024 5:13 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 07/11/2024 13:54, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> I'd say, don't overwrite the array. Instead the driver should extend it
>>>> with the new information.
>>> That is exactly the existing patch is currently doing.
>> _new_ information, not a copy of the existing information.
>
> But is this _really_ new information or is it guarding from "malicious"
> additional messages ?
>
> @Vikash is it even a valid use-case for firmware to send one set of capabilities
> and then send a new set ?
>
> It seems to me this should only happen once when the firmware starts up - the
> firmware won't acquire any new abilities once it has enumerated its set to APSS.
>
> So why is it valid to process an additional message at all ?
>
> Shouldn't we instead be throwing away redundant updates either silently or with
> some kind of complaint ?
>
> If there's no new data - then this is data we shouldn't bother processing.
>
> If it is new data then surely it should be the _current_ and _only_ valid set of
> data.
>
> And if the update is considered "invalid" then why _would_ we accept the update ?
>
> I get we're fixing the OOB but I think we should be clear on the validity of the
> content of the packet.
The payload [1] is all about 2 u32s each for decoder and encoder bit masks,
while each bit signifies which codec each supports. So in a good case, it would
be always first iteration which would be sufficient. Its a very hypothetical
case where a good case would that there are 8 payloads (consider there are 8
supported codecs) with one bit set in each of those 8 payloads. I was initially
thinking to cover for this case as well, seems could be a bit of over designing.
Maybe set core->codecs_count (to 0) in the beginning of the API should cover the
working case. In malicious case, let it continue to override ?
Regards,
Vikash
[1]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc7/source/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/hfi_parser.c#L193
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-11 14:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-05 8:54 [PATCH 0/4] Venus driver fixes to avoid possible OOB accesses Vikash Garodia
2024-11-05 8:54 ` [PATCH 1/4] media: venus: hfi_parser: add check to avoid out of bound access Vikash Garodia
2024-11-05 10:51 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-06 7:25 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-06 10:23 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-07 8:24 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-05 13:55 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-11-07 8:17 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-07 10:41 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-11-07 12:07 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-07 13:02 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-07 13:22 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-11-07 13:35 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-07 13:54 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-11-08 11:43 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-11 14:02 ` Vikash Garodia [this message]
2024-11-11 14:04 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-05 8:54 ` [PATCH 2/4] media: venus: hfi_parser: avoid OOB access beyond payload word count Vikash Garodia
2024-11-05 11:15 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-11 14:36 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-11 23:43 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-12 8:05 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-12 11:17 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-12 12:58 ` Vikash Garodia
2024-11-12 13:00 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-05 8:54 ` [PATCH 3/4] media: venus: hfi: add check to handle incorrect queue size Vikash Garodia
2024-11-05 11:23 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-05 8:54 ` [PATCH 4/4] media: venus: hfi: add a check to handle OOB in sfr region Vikash Garodia
2024-11-05 11:27 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2024-11-05 13:58 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-11-06 7:21 ` Vikash Garodia
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e2b31dbc-2681-1bd8-e013-d65ec52bbf1a@quicinc.com \
--to=quic_vgarodia@quicinc.com \
--cc=bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org \
--cc=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stanimir.k.varbanov@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®