On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:11:37AM +0300, David Weinehall wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:24:46AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:10:54PM +0300, Antti Koskipaa wrote: > > > VBT version 196 increased the size of common_child_dev_config. The parser > > > code assumed that the size of this structure would not change. > > > > > > So now, instead of checking for smaller size, check that the VBT entry is > > > not too large and memcpy only child_dev_size amount of data, leaving any > > > trailing entries as zero. If this is not good enough for the future, > > > we can always sprinkle extra version checks in there. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Antti Koskipaa <antti.koski...@linux.intel.com> > > > > As I mentioned in the other threads I think with vbt it's not too paranoid > > to double-check our assumptions. So for each vbt version range I'd like us > > to check what size we exactly expect. Being super paranoid with vbt is imo > > good practice since otherwise the hw teams will sneak in another update > > without us realizing it. > > Antti's on vacation now for the next few weeks. Do you need these > modifications as a pre-requisite for merging his patch, or can further > improvements be submitted separately?
This patch starts to make our vbt checking lax. I don't want to walk down this road really, so yes I prefer if we just keep on having really strict checks. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
