+ snd_sof_dsp_block_write(sdev, offset,
+ (void *)block + sizeof(*block),
+ block->size);
+
+ /* next block */
+ block = (void *)block + sizeof(*block) + block->size;
This may lead to an unaligned access.
Did you mean we should double check the block->size to
prevent access to an invalid address?
You need two types of checks for the given data:
- The bounce check of block->size;
We need to avoid out-of-bounce access.
s/bounce/bounds ?
- Alignment of block->size;
For some non-x86 platforms, the access to an unaligned address might
be illegal.
Maybe I am missing something but I don't see any sort of explicit
restriction on alignment in the SOF tools. it looks implicit based on
address offsets and bases.
Liam, do you see any negative side effects if we enforce a 32-bit
alignment for all blocks (which essentially means all block sizes are
multiple of 4)? we can try and experiment but it's better if we have an
agreement on the design.
Oh, and recently another thing is sometimes needed for avoiding
Spectre. This can be covered by array_index_nospec().
Also how is the endianess guaranteed?
Did you mean we should guarantee the driver can work no
matter what kernel's endianess is?
ie. Use le32_to_cpu() to handle it?
Depends on the implementation. IIRC, topology API refuses the data
in a different endianess by checking the magic number at beginning.
snd_sof_dsp_block_write() is implemented with a platform-specific
callback, I'd expect any endianess issues to be handled in that
platform-specific code?
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
