Hi Krzysztof
On Mon Sep 8, 2025 at 9:25 AM UTC, Krzysztof Karas wrote:
> There are two unsafe scenarios in that function:
> 1) drm_format_info_block_width/height() may return 0 and cause
> division by 0 down the line. Return early if any of these values
> are 0.
> 2) dma_addr calculations are carried out using 32-bit
> arithmetic, which could cause a truncation of the values
> before they are extended to 64 bits. Cast one of the operands
> to dma_addr_t, so 64-bit arithmetic is used.
>
> Fixes: 8c30eecc6769 ("drm/gem: rename struct drm_gem_dma_object.{paddr =>
> dma_addr}")
> Cc: Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]> # v6.1+
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Karas <[email protected]>
> ---
LGTM it could probably be split into two patches, but the changes are pretty
small
and it doesn’t really bother me. drm_format_info_block_h/w can both potentially
return 0,
so it's good to verify their return values.
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Brzezinka <[email protected]>
--
Best regards,
Sebastian
