On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 08:24:03AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 09:50:04PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:59:57PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > In order to prevent a potential NULL deference with hostile userspace, > > > we need to check whether the ioctl was passed an invalid args pointer. > > > > > > Reported-by: Tommi Rantala <tt.rant...@gmail.com> > > > Link: > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/ca+ydwtpubvbwxbt-tdgpuvj1eu7itmcho_2b3w13hkd5+jw...@mail.gmail.com > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 11 +++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > > > index 365e41a..9f5602e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > > > @@ -1103,7 +1103,11 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void > > > *data, > > > struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 *exec2_list = NULL; > > > int ret, i; > > > > > > - if (args->buffer_count < 1) { > > > + if (args == NULL) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + if (args->buffer_count < 1 || > > > + args->buffer_count > INT_MAX / sizeof(*exec2_list)) { > > > DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count); > > > return -EINVAL; > > > } > > > @@ -1182,8 +1186,11 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2(struct drm_device *dev, void > > > *data, > > > struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 *exec2_list = NULL; > > > int ret; > > > > > > + if (args == NULL) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > if (args->buffer_count < 1 || > > > - args->buffer_count > UINT_MAX / sizeof(*exec2_list)) { > > > + args->buffer_count > INT_MAX / sizeof(*exec2_list)) { > > > DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count); > > > return -EINVAL; > > > } > > > > Why did you change UINT_MAX to INT_MAX? > > Because we check later against INT_MAX, and I didn't like the confusion. > If we are going to pick an arbitrary limit, lets at least be consistent. > > > TBH, I'm confused what we're > > trying to achieve, and why we need anything other than: > > if (!args->buffer_count) > > Because we then promptly do a u32 multiply and we need to be sure that > userspace can't trigger an overflow there and cause us to read > unallocated memory later. > > > > I'm also not seeing how the NULL checks are needed since at least it > > seems to be for execbuffer (IOW) we could never have NULL args. > > That's what I thought too. Looking at the stack trace, the empirical > evidence is that we need the check. > -Chris
I think we need to investigate the issue more then, or put a BUG_ON() in the drm code and run it through trinity. We have other places where arg can't/shouldn't be NULL and we don't check. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
