On 11/7/2024 6:52 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 06:32:33PM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote: >> >> On 11/7/2024 5:37 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>> On 07/11/2024 10:41, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> init_codecs() parses the payload received from firmware and . I don't think we >>>>> can control this part when we have something like this from a malicious firmware >>>>> payload >>>>> HFI_PROPERTY_PARAM_CODEC_SUPPORTED >>>>> HFI_PROPERTY_PARAM_CODEC_SUPPORTED >>>>> HFI_PROPERTY_PARAM_CODEC_SUPPORTED >>>>> ... >>>>> Limiting it to second iteration would restrict the functionality when property >>>>> HFI_PROPERTY_PARAM_CODEC_SUPPORTED is sent for supported number of codecs. >>>> If you can have a malicious firmware (which is owned and signed by >>>> Qualcomm / OEM), then you have to be careful and skip duplicates. So >>>> instead of just adding new cap to core->caps, you have to go through >>>> that array, check that you are not adding a duplicate (and report a >>>> [Firmware Bug] for duplicates), check that there is an empty slot, etc. >>>> >>>> Just ignoring the "extra" entries is not enough. >> Thinking of something like this >> >> for_each_set_bit(bit, &core->dec_codecs, MAX_CODEC_NUM) { >> if (core->codecs_count >= MAX_CODEC_NUM) >> return; >> cap = &caps[core->codecs_count++]; >> if (cap->codec == BIT(bit)) --> each code would have unique bitfield >> return; > > This won't work and it's pretty obvious why. Could you please elaborate what would break in above logic ? > >>> +1 >>> >>> This is a more rational argument. If you get a second message, you should surely >>> reinit the whole array i.e. update the array with the new list, as opposed to >>> throwing away the second message because it over-indexes your local storage.. >> That would be incorrect to overwrite the array with new list, whenever new >> payload is received. > > I'd say, don't overwrite the array. Instead the driver should extend it > with the new information. That is exactly the existing patch is currently doing. Regards, Vikash > >> >> Regards, >> Vikash >