Hi Daniel,
I have the patches prepared but they needed some testing before I send them (code needed a slight refactor to use the drm_hdcp.h), I should be able to send the patches this week.
Thanks,
Bhawan
On 2019-11-04 10:23 a.m., Wentland, Harry wrote:
> On 2019-11-04 5:53 a.m., Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:58 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:46 PM Lakha, Bhawanpreet
>>> <Bhawanpreet.Lakha@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I misunderstood and was talking about the ksv validation specifically
>>>> (usage of drm_hdcp_check_ksvs_revoked()).
>>> Hm for that specifically I think you want to do both, i.e. both
>>> consult your psp, but also check for revoked ksvs with the core
>>> helper. At least on some platforms only the core helper might have the
>>> updated revoke list.
>>>
> I think it's an either/or. Either we use an HDCP implementation that's
> fully running in x86 kernel space (still not sure how that's compliant)
> or we fully rely on our PSP FW to do what it's designed to do. I don't
> think it makes sense to mix and match here.
>
>>>> For the defines I will create patches to use drm_hdcp where it is usable.
>>> Thanks a lot. Ime once we have shared definitions it's much easier to
>>> also share some helpers, where it makes sense.
>>>
>>> Aside I think the hdcp code could also use a bit of demidlayering. At
>>> least I'm not understanding why you add a 2nd abstraction layer for
>>> i2c/dpcd, dm_helper already has that. That seems like one abstraction
>>> layer too much.
>> I haven't seen anything fly by or in the latest pull request ... you
>> folks still working on this or more put on the "maybe, probably never"
>> pile?
>>
> Following up with Bhawan.
>
> Harry
>
>> -Daniel
>>
>>
>>> -Daniel
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bhawan
>>>>
>>>> On 2019-10-09 2:43 p.m., Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:23 PM Lakha, Bhawanpreet
>>>>> <Bhawanpreet.Lakha@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason we don't use drm_hdcp is because our policy is to do hdcp
>>>>>> verification using PSP/HW (onboard secure processor).
>>>>> i915 also uses hw to auth, we still use the parts from drm_hdcp ...
>>>>> Did you actually look at what's in there? It's essentially just shared
>>>>> defines and data structures from the standard, plus a few minimal
>>>>> helpers to en/decode some bits. Just from a quick read the entire
>>>>> patch very much looks like midlayer everywhere design that we
>>>>> discussed back when DC landed ...
>>>>> -Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bhawan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2019-10-09 12:32 p.m., Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:08:03PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Static analysis with Coverity has detected a potential issue with
>>>>>>>> function validate_bksv in
>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/modules/hdcp/hdcp1_execution.c with recent
>>>>>>>> commit:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commit ed9d8e2bcb003ec94658cafe9b1bb3960e2139ec
>>>>>>>> Author: Bhawanpreet Lakha <Bhawanpreet.Lakha@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> Date: Tue Aug 6 17:52:01 2019 -0400
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> drm/amd/display: Add HDCP module
>>>>>>> I think the real question here is ... why is this not using drm_hdcp?
>>>>>>> -Daniel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The analysis is as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 28 static inline enum mod_hdcp_status validate_bksv(struct mod_hdcp *hdcp)
>>>>>>>> 29 {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CID 89852 (#1 of 1): Out-of-bounds read (OVERRUN)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. overrun-local:
>>>>>>>> Overrunning array of 5 bytes at byte offset 7 by dereferencing pointer
>>>>>>>> (uint64_t *)hdcp->auth.msg.hdcp1.bksv.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 30 uint64_t n = *(uint64_t *)hdcp->auth.msg.hdcp1.bksv;
>>>>>>>> 31 uint8_t count = 0;
>>>>>>>> 32
>>>>>>>> 33 while (n) {
>>>>>>>> 34 count++;
>>>>>>>> 35 n &= (n - 1);
>>>>>>>> 36 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hdcp->auth.msg.hdcp1.bksv is an array of 5 uint8_t as defined in
>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/modules/hdcp/hdcp.h as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> struct mod_hdcp_message_hdcp1 {
>>>>>>>> uint8_t an[8];
>>>>>>>> uint8_t aksv[5];
>>>>>>>> uint8_t ainfo;
>>>>>>>> uint8_t bksv[5];
>>>>>>>> uint16_t r0p;
>>>>>>>> uint8_t bcaps;
>>>>>>>> uint16_t bstatus;
>>>>>>>> uint8_t ksvlist[635];
>>>>>>>> uint16_t ksvlist_size;
>>>>>>>> uint8_t vp[20];
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> uint16_t binfo_dp;
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> variable n is going to contain the contains of r0p and bcaps. I'm not
>>>>>>>> sure if that is intentional. If not, then the count is going to be
>>>>>>>> incorrect if these are non-zero.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>>>>> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Vetter
>>> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>>> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Vetter
>> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
>>
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
