On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:54:04AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:11:04PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> The offset within and the length of the command sequence to execute are
> >>> supplied by the user with respect to the batch buffer. We should be
> >>> validating that region is wholly contained within the batch buffer;
> >>> make it so.
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 7 +++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> >>> index a4c243cec4aa..e38284c1b89f 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> >>> @@ -1462,6 +1462,13 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> >>> /* take note of the batch buffer before we might reorder the lists */
> >>> batch_obj = eb_get_batch(eb);
> >>>
> >>> + if (args->batch_len > batch_obj->base.size ||
> >>> + args->batch_start_offset > batch_obj->base.size - args->batch_len) {
> >>
> >> lgtm. No possibility of overflow doing it that way.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I don't know what I fat fingered with the previous mail, but I just
> stumbled upon this patch and noticed it never made it. Is this still
> valid?
Yup, I'd completely forgotten about this patch and it we don't have the
safeguard in the kernel yet.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
