Hi Bryan, On 8/14/2023 7:45 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 14/08/2023 07:34, Vikash Garodia wrote: >>> We have two loops that check for up to 32 indexes per loop. Why not have a >>> capabilities index that can accommodate all 64 bits ? >> Max codecs supported can be 32, which is also a very high number. At max the >> hardware supports 5-6 codecs, including both decoder and encoder. 64 indices is >> would not be needed. >> > > But the bug you are fixing here is an overflow where we have received a full > range 32 bit for each decode and encode. > > How is the right fix not to extend the storage to the maximum possible 2 x 32 ? > Or indeed why not constrain the input data to 32/2 for each encode/decode path ? At this point, we agree that there is very less or no possibility to have this as a real usecase i.e having 64 (or more than 32) codecs supported in video hardware. There seem to be no value add if we are extending the cap array from 32 to 64, as anything beyond 32 itself indicates rogue firmware. The idea here is to gracefully come out of such case when firmware is responding with such data payload. Again, lets think of constraining the data to 32/2. We have 2 32 bit masks for decoder and encoder. Malfunctioning firmware could still send payload with all bits enabled in those masks. Then the driver needs to add same check to avoid the memcpy in such case. > The bug here is that we can copy two arrays of size X into one array of size X. > > Please consider expanding the size of the storage array to accommodate the full > size the protocol supports 2 x 32. I see this as an alternate implementation to existing handling. 64 index would never exist practically, so accommodating it only implies to store the data for invalid response and gracefully close the session. Thanks, Vikash
