Hi,
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 7:29 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In commit e11f5bd8228f ("drm: Add support for DP 1.4 Compliance edid
> corruption test") the function connector_bad_edid() started assuming
> that the memory for the EDID passed to it was big enough to hold
> `edid[0x7e] + 1` blocks of data (1 extra for the base block). It
> completely ignored the fact that the function was passed `num_blocks`
> which indicated how much memory had been allocated for the EDID.
>
> Let's fix this by adding a bounds check.
>
> This is important for handling the case where there's an error in the
> first block of the EDID. In that case we will call
> connector_bad_edid() without having re-allocated memory based on
> `edid[0x7e]`.
>
> Fixes: e11f5bd8228f ("drm: Add support for DP 1.4 Compliance edid corruption test")
> Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This problem report came up in the context of a patch I sent out [1]
> and this is my attempt at a fix. The problem predates my patch,
> though. I don't personally know anything about DP compliance testing
> and what should be happening here, nor do I apparently have any
> hardware that actually reports a bad EDID. Thus this is just compile
> tested. I'm hoping that someone here can test this and make sure it
> seems OK to them.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Added a comment/changed math to help make it easier to grok.
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Pushed this to drm-misc-fixes since the commit it fixes is fairly old.
fdc21c35aaa1 drm/edid: In connector_bad_edid() cap num_of_ext by num_blocks read
-Doug
