On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 6:41 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? You've convinced me. Applied. Thanks, Alex > > -- > Kees Cook
