On 2019-11-04 5:53 a.m., Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:58 PM Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:46 PM Lakha, Bhawanpreet
>> <bhawanpreet.la...@amd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I misunderstood and was talking about the ksv validation specifically
>>> (usage of drm_hdcp_check_ksvs_revoked()).
>>
>> Hm for that specifically I think you want to do both, i.e. both
>> consult your psp, but also check for revoked ksvs with the core
>> helper. At least on some platforms only the core helper might have the
>> updated revoke list.
>>
I think it's an either/or. Either we use an HDCP implementation that's
fully running in x86 kernel space (still not sure how that's compliant)
or we fully rely on our PSP FW to do what it's designed to do. I don't
think it makes sense to mix and match here.
>>> For the defines I will create patches to use drm_hdcp where it is usable.
>>
>> Thanks a lot. Ime once we have shared definitions it's much easier to
>> also share some helpers, where it makes sense.
>>
>> Aside I think the hdcp code could also use a bit of demidlayering. At
>> least I'm not understanding why you add a 2nd abstraction layer for
>> i2c/dpcd, dm_helper already has that. That seems like one abstraction
>> layer too much.
>
> I haven't seen anything fly by or in the latest pull request ... you
> folks still working on this or more put on the "maybe, probably never"
> pile?
>
Following up with Bhawan.
Harry
> -Daniel
>
>
>> -Daniel
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bhawan
>>>
>>> On 2019-10-09 2:43 p.m., Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:23 PM Lakha, Bhawanpreet
>>>> <bhawanpreet.la...@amd.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason we don't use drm_hdcp is because our policy is to do hdcp
>>>>> verification using PSP/HW (onboard secure processor).
>>>> i915 also uses hw to auth, we still use the parts from drm_hdcp ...
>>>> Did you actually look at what's in there? It's essentially just shared
>>>> defines and data structures from the standard, plus a few minimal
>>>> helpers to en/decode some bits. Just from a quick read the entire
>>>> patch very much looks like midlayer everywhere design that we
>>>> discussed back when DC landed ...
>>>> -Daniel
>>>>
>>>>> Bhawan
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2019-10-09 12:32 p.m., Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 11:08:03PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Static analysis with Coverity has detected a potential issue with
>>>>>>> function validate_bksv in
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/modules/hdcp/hdcp1_execution.c with recent
>>>>>>> commit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit ed9d8e2bcb003ec94658cafe9b1bb3960e2139ec
>>>>>>> Author: Bhawanpreet Lakha <bhawanpreet.la...@amd.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Tue Aug 6 17:52:01 2019 -0400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drm/amd/display: Add HDCP module
>>>>>> I think the real question here is ... why is this not using drm_hdcp?
>>>>>> -Daniel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The analysis is as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 28 static inline enum mod_hdcp_status validate_bksv(struct mod_hdcp
>>>>>>> *hdcp)
>>>>>>> 29 {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CID 89852 (#1 of 1): Out-of-bounds read (OVERRUN)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. overrun-local:
>>>>>>> Overrunning array of 5 bytes at byte offset 7 by dereferencing pointer
>>>>>>> (uint64_t *)hdcp->auth.msg.hdcp1.bksv.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 30 uint64_t n = *(uint64_t *)hdcp->auth.msg.hdcp1.bksv;
>>>>>>> 31 uint8_t count = 0;
>>>>>>> 32
>>>>>>> 33 while (n) {
>>>>>>> 34 count++;
>>>>>>> 35 n &= (n - 1);
>>>>>>> 36 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hdcp->auth.msg.hdcp1.bksv is an array of 5 uint8_t as defined in
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/modules/hdcp/hdcp.h as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct mod_hdcp_message_hdcp1 {
>>>>>>> uint8_t an[8];
>>>>>>> uint8_t aksv[5];
>>>>>>> uint8_t ainfo;
>>>>>>> uint8_t bksv[5];
>>>>>>> uint16_t r0p;
>>>>>>> uint8_t bcaps;
>>>>>>> uint16_t bstatus;
>>>>>>> uint8_t ksvlist[635];
>>>>>>> uint16_t ksvlist_size;
>>>>>>> uint8_t vp[20];
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> uint16_t binfo_dp;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> variable n is going to contain the contains of r0p and bcaps. I'm not
>>>>>>> sure if that is intentional. If not, then the count is going to be
>>>>>>> incorrect if these are non-zero.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>>>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Vetter
>> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
