On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 06:09:16PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 5:54 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Does the ROM always only have a single byte there? This seems unlikely > > given the member "ucFakeEDIDLength" (and the code below). > > I'm not sure. I'm mostly concerned about this: > > record += fake_edid_record->ucFakeEDIDLength ? > fake_edid_record->ucFakeEDIDLength + 2 : > sizeof(ATOM_FAKE_EDID_PATCH_RECORD); But this is exactly what the code currently does, as noted in the commit log: "It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch results in no binary output differences. > Presumably the record should only exist if ucFakeEDIDLength is non 0, > but I don't know if there are some OEMs out there that just included > an empty record for some reason. Maybe the code is wrong today and > there are some OEMs that include it and the array is already size 0. > In that case, Paulo's original patches are probably more correct. Right, but if true, that seems to be a distinctly separate bug fix? -- Kees Cook
