[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid
Hi Daniel, On 2013? 07? 01? 23:56, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson > wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: >>> If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is >>> meaningless. >> >> It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. >> As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned >> true/false, but your patch is correct wrt to the rest of the function. > > If we consider passing a NULL raw_edid here a caller-error, shouldn't > this be a WARN on top? And I concur on the s/0/false/ bikeshed, return > 0 could be misleading since for errno returning functions that reads > as success. Yes, you are right. WARN_ON() is better because there was no crash until now. and I will also update all return values as false/true instead of 0/1. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > ___ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > -- Seung-Woo Kim Samsung Software R Center --
[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid
If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is
meaningless.
Signed-off-by: Seung-Woo Kim
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
index 2dc1a60..dbaed34 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
@@ -968,6 +968,9 @@ bool drm_edid_block_valid(u8 *raw_edid, int block, bool
print_bad_edid)
u8 csum = 0;
struct edid *edid = (struct edid *)raw_edid;
+ if (!raw_edid)
+ return 0;
+
if (edid_fixup > 8 || edid_fixup < 0)
edid_fixup = 6;
@@ -1013,7 +1016,7 @@ bool drm_edid_block_valid(u8 *raw_edid, int block, bool
print_bad_edid)
return 1;
bad:
- if (raw_edid && print_bad_edid) {
+ if (print_bad_edid) {
printk(KERN_ERR "Raw EDID:\n");
print_hex_dump(KERN_ERR, " \t", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, 16, 1,
raw_edid, EDID_LENGTH, false);
--
1.7.4.1
[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: >> If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is >> meaningless. > > It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. > As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned > true/false, but your patch is correct wrt to the rest of the function. If we consider passing a NULL raw_edid here a caller-error, shouldn't this be a WARN on top? And I concur on the s/0/false/ bikeshed, return 0 could be misleading since for errno returning functions that reads as success. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: > If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is > meaningless. It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned true/false, but your patch is correct wrt to the rest of the function. > Signed-off-by: Seung-Woo Kim > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
[PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid
If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is
meaningless.
Signed-off-by: Seung-Woo Kim sw0312@samsung.com
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
index 2dc1a60..dbaed34 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
@@ -968,6 +968,9 @@ bool drm_edid_block_valid(u8 *raw_edid, int block, bool
print_bad_edid)
u8 csum = 0;
struct edid *edid = (struct edid *)raw_edid;
+ if (!raw_edid)
+ return 0;
+
if (edid_fixup 8 || edid_fixup 0)
edid_fixup = 6;
@@ -1013,7 +1016,7 @@ bool drm_edid_block_valid(u8 *raw_edid, int block, bool
print_bad_edid)
return 1;
bad:
- if (raw_edid print_bad_edid) {
+ if (print_bad_edid) {
printk(KERN_ERR Raw EDID:\n);
print_hex_dump(KERN_ERR, \t, DUMP_PREFIX_NONE, 16, 1,
raw_edid, EDID_LENGTH, false);
--
1.7.4.1
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is meaningless. It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned true/false, but your patch is correct wrt to the rest of the function. Signed-off-by: Seung-Woo Kim sw0312@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is meaningless. It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned true/false, but your patch is correct wrt to the rest of the function. If we consider passing a NULL raw_edid here a caller-error, shouldn't this be a WARN on top? And I concur on the s/0/false/ bikeshed, return 0 could be misleading since for errno returning functions that reads as success. -Daniel -- 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 http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm: move edid null check to the first part of drm_edid_block_valid
Hi Daniel, On 2013년 07월 01일 23:56, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 07:06:32PM +0900, Seung-Woo Kim wrote: If raw_edid is null, it will crash, so checking in bad label is meaningless. It would be an error on part of the caller, but the defense looks sane. As the function is a bool, I would have preferred it returned true/false, but your patch is correct wrt to the rest of the function. If we consider passing a NULL raw_edid here a caller-error, shouldn't this be a WARN on top? And I concur on the s/0/false/ bikeshed, return 0 could be misleading since for errno returning functions that reads as success. Yes, you are right. WARN_ON() is better because there was no crash until now. and I will also update all return values as false/true instead of 0/1. -Daniel -- 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 http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Seung-Woo Kim Samsung Software RD Center -- ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
