On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:47 PM Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sorry! Thought I had responded to this but apparently not, comments down below
>
> On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 14:04 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:55 PM Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Noticed this when trying to compile with -Wall on a kernel fork. We
> > > potentially
> > > don't set width here, which causes the compiler to complain about width
> > > potentially being uninitialized in drm_cvt_modes(). So, let's fix that.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.9+
> > > Fixes: 3f649ab728cd ("treewide: Remove uninitialized_var() usage")
> > > Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 8 +++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > index 631125b46e04..2da158ffed8e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > > @@ -3094,6 +3094,7 @@ static int drm_cvt_modes(struct drm_connector
> > > *connector,
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> > > int width, height;
> > > + u8 cvt_aspect_ratio;
> > >
> > > cvt = &(timing->data.other_data.data.cvt[i]);
> > >
> > > @@ -3101,7 +3102,8 @@ static int drm_cvt_modes(struct drm_connector
> > > *connector,
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > height = (cvt->code[0] + ((cvt->code[1] & 0xf0) << 4) + 1) *
> > > 2;
> > > - switch (cvt->code[1] & 0x0c) {
> > > + cvt_aspect_ratio = cvt->code[1] & 0x0c;
> > > + switch (cvt_aspect_ratio) {
> > > case 0x00:
> > > width = height * 4 / 3;
> > > break;
> > > @@ -3114,6 +3116,10 @@ static int drm_cvt_modes(struct drm_connector
> > > *connector,
> > > case 0x0c:
> > > width = height * 15 / 9;
> > > break;
> > > + default:
> >
> > What value would cvt->code[1] have such that this gets hit?
> >
> > Or is this a "compiler is broken, so let's add more code" situation?
> > If so, perhaps the code added could just be enough to silence the
> > compiler (unreachable, etc)?
>
> I mean, this information comes from the EDID which inherently means it's coming
> from an untrusted source so the value could be literally anything as long as the
> EDID has a valid checksum. Note (assuming I'm understanding this code
> correctly):
>
> drm_add_edid_modes() → add_cvt_modes() → drm_for_each_detailed_block() →
> do_cvt_mode() → drm_cvt_modes()
>
> So afaict this isn't a broken compiler but a legitimate uninitialized variable.
The value can be anything, but it has to be something. The switch is
on "unknown & 0x0c", so only 4 cases are possible, which are
enumerated in the switch.
-ilia
