RE: [PATCH 5/8] drm/edid: Document why we don't bounds check the DispID CEA block start/end

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: dri-devel <dri-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Ville Syrjälä
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:14 PM
> To: Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Andres Rodriguez
> <andresx7@xxxxxxxxx>; Maling list - DRI developers <dri-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] drm/edid: Document why we don't bounds check the
> DispID CEA block start/end
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 05:30:42PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:03 PM Ville Syrjala
> > <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > After much head scratching I managed to convince myself that
> > > for_each_displayid_db() has already done the bounds checks for the
> > > DispID CEA data block. Which is why we don't need to repeat them in
> > > cea_db_offsets(). To avoid having to go through that pain again in
> > > the future add a comment which explains this fact.
> > >
> > > Cc: Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 4 ++++
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > index 3df5744026b0..0369a54e3d32 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > @@ -4001,6 +4001,10 @@ cea_db_offsets(const u8 *cea, int *start, int *end)
> > >          *   no non-DTD data.
> > >          */
> > >         if (cea[0] == DATA_BLOCK_CTA) {
> > > +               /*
> > > +                * for_each_displayid_db() has already verified
> > > +                * that these stay within expected bounds.
> > > +                */
> >
> > I think the preferred format is to have the start of the comment be on
> > the first line after the /* with that fixed:
> 
> Nope.

Yes the style is correct here, comment is apt as well.
Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>

> > Acked-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > >                 *start = 3;
> > >                 *end = *start + cea[2];
> > >         } else if (cea[0] == CEA_EXT) {
> > > --
> > > 2.24.1
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dri-devel mailing list
> > > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> 
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux