Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:55:01 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm: bridge: sii8620: fix possible off-by-one | From | Hangyu Hua <> |
| |
On 2022/5/18 15:57, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > > On 18.05.2022 08:58, Hangyu Hua wrote: >> The next call to sii8620_burst_get_tx_buf will result in off-by-one >> When ctx->burst.tx_count + size == ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->burst.tx_buf). The >> same >> thing happens in sii8620_burst_get_rx_buf. >> >> This patch also change tx_count and tx_buf to rx_count and rx_buf in >> sii8620_burst_get_rx_buf. It is unreasonable to check tx_buf's size and >> use rx_buf. >> >> Fixes: e19e9c692f81 ("drm/bridge/sii8620: add support for burst eMSC >> transmissions") >> Signed-off-by: Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@gmail.com> > Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com> > > Regards > Andrzej >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/sil-sii8620.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/sil-sii8620.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/sil-sii8620.c >> index ec7745c31da0..ab0bce4a988c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/sil-sii8620.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/sil-sii8620.c >> @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static void *sii8620_burst_get_tx_buf(struct >> sii8620 *ctx, int len) >> u8 *buf = &ctx->burst.tx_buf[ctx->burst.tx_count]; >> int size = len + 2; >> - if (ctx->burst.tx_count + size > ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->burst.tx_buf)) { >> + if (ctx->burst.tx_count + size >= ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->burst.tx_buf)) { >> dev_err(ctx->dev, "TX-BLK buffer exhausted\n"); >> ctx->error = -EINVAL; >> return NULL; >> @@ -622,7 +622,7 @@ static u8 *sii8620_burst_get_rx_buf(struct sii8620 >> *ctx, int len) >> u8 *buf = &ctx->burst.rx_buf[ctx->burst.rx_count]; >> int size = len + 1; >> - if (ctx->burst.tx_count + size > ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->burst.tx_buf)) { >> + if (ctx->burst.rx_count + size >= ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->burst.rx_buf)) { >> dev_err(ctx->dev, "RX-BLK buffer exhausted\n"); >> ctx->error = -EINVAL; >> return NULL; >
Hi guys,
Another patches for this module that I submitted at the same time as this one have been merged. Is this patch forgotten to merge?
Thanks, Hangyu
| |