On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 07:22:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 06:48:49PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Pimp drm_property_type_valid() to check for more fails with the
> > property flags. Also make the check before adding the property,
> > and bail out if things look bad.
> >
> > Since we're now chekcing for more than the type let's also
> > change the function name to drm_property_flags_valid().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c
> > index 027a50e55e96..6ac6ee41a6a3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c
> > @@ -50,11 +50,27 @@
> > * IOCTL and in the get/set property IOCTL.
> > */
> >
> > -static bool drm_property_type_valid(struct drm_property *property)
> > +static bool drm_property_flags_valid(u32 flags)
> > {
> > - if (property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_EXTENDED_TYPE)
> > - return !(property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_LEGACY_TYPE);
> > - return !!(property->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_LEGACY_TYPE);
> > + u32 legacy_type = flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_LEGACY_TYPE;
> > + u32 ext_type = flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_EXTENDED_TYPE;
> > +
> > + /* Reject undefined/deprecated flags */
> > + if (flags & ~(DRM_MODE_PROP_LEGACY_TYPE |
> > + DRM_MODE_PROP_EXTENDED_TYPE |
> > + DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE |
> > + DRM_MODE_PROP_ATOMIC))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + /* We want either a legacy type or an extended type, but not both */
> > + if (!legacy_type == !ext_type)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + /* Only one legacy type at a time please */
> > + if (legacy_type && !is_power_of_2(legacy_type))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + return true;
> > }
>
> I think this catches everything. Well except not-yet-assigned
> EXTENDED_TYPE defines, but really we can overdo this :-)
Hmm. Yeah, I guess that kind of a fail is fairly unlikely because the
defines won't be there. Would require the driver to basically pass in
utter garbage instead of just a bad combination of existing flags.
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks. Series pushed to drm-misc-next.
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -79,6 +95,9 @@ struct drm_property *drm_property_create(struct drm_device *dev,
> > struct drm_property *property = NULL;
> > int ret;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON(!drm_property_flags_valid(flags)))
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > if (WARN_ON(strlen(name) >= DRM_PROP_NAME_LEN))
> > return NULL;
> >
> > @@ -108,8 +127,6 @@ struct drm_property *drm_property_create(struct drm_device *dev,
> >
> > list_add_tail(&property->head, &dev->mode_config.property_list);
> >
> > - WARN_ON(!drm_property_type_valid(property));
> > -
> > return property;
> > fail:
> > kfree(property->values);
> > --
> > 2.16.1
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dri-devel mailing list
> > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
