In the bug reported by Syzbot, the variable `den == (1 << 22)` and
`mode->vscan == (1 << 10)`, causing the multiplication to overflow and
accidentally make `den == 0`. To prevent any chance of overflow, we
replace `num` and `den` with 64-bit unsigned integers, and explicitly
check if the divisor `den` will overflow. If so, we employ full 64-bit
division with rounding; otherwise we keep the 64-bit to 32-bit division
that could potentially be better optimized.
In order to minimize the performance overhead, the overflow check for
`den` is wrapped with an `unlikely` condition. Please let me know if
this usage is appropriate.
Reported-by: syzbot+622bba18029bcde67...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ziqi Zhao <astraj...@yahoo.com>
---
V1 -> V2: address style comments suggested by Jani Nikula
<jani.nik...@linux.intel.com>
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c
index ac9a406250c5..137101960690 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c
@@ -1285,13 +1285,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_mode_set_name);
*/
int drm_mode_vrefresh(const struct drm_display_mode *mode)
{
- unsigned int num, den;
+ u64 num, den;
if (mode->htotal == 0 || mode->vtotal == 0)
return 0;
- num = mode->clock;
- den = mode->htotal * mode->vtotal;
+ num = mul_u32_u32(mode->clock, 1000);
+ den = mul_u32_u32(mode->htotal, mode->vtotal);
if (mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_INTERLACE)
num *= 2;
@@ -1300,7 +1300,10 @@ int drm_mode_vrefresh(const struct drm_display_mode
*mode)
if (mode->vscan > 1)
den *= mode->vscan;
- return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(mul_u32_u32(num, 1000), den);
+ if (unlikely(den > UINT_MAX))
+ return DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST(num, den);
+
+ return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(num, (u32) den);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_mode_vrefresh);
--
2.34.1
