This patch fix possible NULL pointer dereference when
r600_prepare_blit_copy tries to fill dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv
without check of dev_priv->blit_vb. dev_priv->blit_vb should be
filled by r600_nomm_get_vb but latest can fail with EAGAIN.
Addresses: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
index f4fb88e..0df4a2b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
@@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
DRM_DEBUG("\n");
r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
+ if (!dev_priv->blit_vb)
+ return;
dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
--
1.7.1.1
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch fix possible NULL pointer dereference when
> r600_prepare_blit_copy tries to fill dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv
> without check of dev_priv->blit_vb. dev_priv->blit_vb should be
> filled by r600_nomm_get_vb but latest can fail with EAGAIN.
> Addresses: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
>
> ---
> ?drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c | ? ?2 ++
> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> index f4fb88e..0df4a2b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> @@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>
> ? ? ? ?r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
> + ? ? ? if (!dev_priv->blit_vb)
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return;
r600_prepare_blit_copy returns an int so something like this would be better:
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
@@ -539,8 +539,10 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev,
struct drm_file *file_priv)
{
drm_radeon_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
DRM_DEBUG("\n");
+ int ret = r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
- r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
Alex
>
> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>
> --
> 1.7.1.1
>
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This patch fix possible NULL pointer dereference when
>> r600_prepare_blit_copy tries to fill dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv
>> without check of dev_priv->blit_vb. dev_priv->blit_vb should be
>> filled by r600_nomm_get_vb but latest can fail with EAGAIN.
>> Addresses: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
>>
>> ---
>> ?drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c | ? ?2 ++
>> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>> index f4fb88e..0df4a2b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>> @@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>>
>> ? ? ? ?r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>> + ? ? ? if (!dev_priv->blit_vb)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return;
>
> r600_prepare_blit_copy returns an int so something like this would be better:
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> @@ -539,8 +539,10 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev,
> struct drm_file *file_priv)
> ?{
> ? ? ? ?drm_radeon_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
> + ? ? ? int ret = r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>
> - ? ? ? r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
> + ? ? ? if (ret)
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return ret;
>
> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>
>
> Alex
>
>>
>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.1.1
>>
>
i haven't any preferneces, the only thing is - it would be logical
to have every check in common style, so other cases
(r600_blit_copy, r600_blit_swap) should be fixed, nop?
--
Best regards.
? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> This patch fix possible NULL pointer dereference when
>>> r600_prepare_blit_copy tries to fill dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv
>>> without check of dev_priv->blit_vb. dev_priv->blit_vb should be
>>> filled by r600_nomm_get_vb but latest can fail with EAGAIN.
>>> Addresses: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
>>>
>>> ---
>>> ?drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c | ? ?2 ++
>>> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>> index f4fb88e..0df4a2b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>> @@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
>>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>> + ? ? ? if (!dev_priv->blit_vb)
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return;
>>
>> r600_prepare_blit_copy returns an int so something like this would be better:
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>> @@ -539,8 +539,10 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev,
>> struct drm_file *file_priv)
>> ?{
>> ? ? ? ?drm_radeon_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>> + ? ? ? int ret = r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>
>> - ? ? ? r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>> + ? ? ? if (ret)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return ret;
>>
>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>>
>>> --
>>> 1.7.1.1
>>>
>>
>
> i haven't any preferneces, the only thing is - it would be logical
> to have every check in common style, so other cases
> (r600_blit_copy, r600_blit_swap) should be fixed, nop?
Those are void functions so there's nothing to return.
Alex
>
> --
> Best regards.
> ? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>
>
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> This patch fix possible NULL pointer dereference when
>>>> r600_prepare_blit_copy tries to fill dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv
>>>> without check of dev_priv->blit_vb. dev_priv->blit_vb should be
>>>> filled by r600_nomm_get_vb but latest can fail with EAGAIN.
>>>> Addresses: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> ?drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c | ? ?2 ++
>>>> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>> index f4fb88e..0df4a2b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>> @@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
>>>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>>>>
>>>> ? ? ? ?r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>>> + ? ? ? if (!dev_priv->blit_vb)
>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return;
>>>
>>> r600_prepare_blit_copy returns an int so something like this would be better:
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>> @@ -539,8 +539,10 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev,
>>> struct drm_file *file_priv)
>>> ?{
>>> ? ? ? ?drm_radeon_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>>> + ? ? ? int ret = r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>>
>>> - ? ? ? r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>> + ? ? ? if (ret)
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return ret;
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 1.7.1.1
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> i haven't any preferneces, the only thing is - it would be logical
>> to have every check in common style, so other cases
>> (r600_blit_copy, r600_blit_swap) should be fixed, nop?
>
> Those are void functions so there's nothing to return.
i mean both of them call r600_nomm_get_vb and both of them
check if (!dev_priv->blit_vb), not return value.I mean would be
logical to check it the same way everytime r600_nomm_get_vb
gets called.
> Alex
>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards.
>> ? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>
>>
>
--
Best regards.
? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> This patch fix possible NULL pointer dereference when
>>>>> r600_prepare_blit_copy tries to fill dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv
>>>>> without check of dev_priv->blit_vb. dev_priv->blit_vb should be
>>>>> filled by r600_nomm_get_vb but latest can fail with EAGAIN.
>>>>> Addresses: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ?drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c | ? ?2 ++
>>>>> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>>> index f4fb88e..0df4a2b 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>>> @@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
>>>>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> ? ? ? ?r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>>>> + ? ? ? if (!dev_priv->blit_vb)
>>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return;
>>>>
>>>> r600_prepare_blit_copy returns an int so something like this would be better:
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>> @@ -539,8 +539,10 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev,
>>>> struct drm_file *file_priv)
>>>> ?{
>>>> ? ? ? ?drm_radeon_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>>>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>>>> + ? ? ? int ret = r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>>>
>>>> - ? ? ? r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>>> + ? ? ? if (ret)
>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return ret;
>>>>
>>>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.7.1.1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> i haven't any preferneces, the only thing is - it would be logical
>>> to have every check in common style, so other cases
>>> (r600_blit_copy, r600_blit_swap) should be fixed, nop?
>>
>> Those are void functions so there's nothing to return.
>
> i mean both of them call r600_nomm_get_vb and both of them
> check if (!dev_priv->blit_vb), not return ?value.I mean would be
> logical to check it the same way everytime r600_nomm_get_vb
> gets called.
yeah, either way. You just need to return an error in r600_prepare_blit_copy.
Alex
>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards.
>>> ? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards.
> ? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>
>
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 01:07 +0400, Alexander Y. Fomichev wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> This patch fix possible NULL pointer dereference when
> >>>> r600_prepare_blit_copy tries to fill dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv
> >>>> without check of dev_priv->blit_vb. dev_priv->blit_vb should be
> >>>> filled by r600_nomm_get_vb but latest can fail with EAGAIN.
> >>>> Addresses: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c | 2 ++
> >>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> >>>> index f4fb88e..0df4a2b 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> >>>> @@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
> >>>> DRM_DEBUG("\n");
> >>>>
> >>>> r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
> >>>> + if (!dev_priv->blit_vb)
> >>>> + return;
> >>>
> >>> r600_prepare_blit_copy returns an int so something like this would be better:
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
> >>> @@ -539,8 +539,10 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>> struct drm_file *file_priv)
> >>> {
> >>> drm_radeon_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >>> DRM_DEBUG("\n");
> >>> + int ret = r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
> >>>
> >>> - r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>>
> >>> dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Alex
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 1.7.1.1
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> i haven't any preferneces, the only thing is - it would be logical
> >> to have every check in common style, so other cases
> >> (r600_blit_copy, r600_blit_swap) should be fixed, nop?
> >
> > Those are void functions so there's nothing to return.
>
> i mean both of them call r600_nomm_get_vb and both of them
> check if (!dev_priv->blit_vb), not return value.I mean would be
> logical to check it the same way everytime r600_nomm_get_vb
> gets called.
I'm going to go with Alex's patch, as none of the other callsites return
an error, and your patch doesn't return value from a function which has
a int return type, causing a warning.
Dave.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Alex Deucher <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alexander Y. Fomichev
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> This patch fix possible NULL pointer dereference when
>>>>>> r600_prepare_blit_copy tries to fill dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv
>>>>>> without check of dev_priv->blit_vb. dev_priv->blit_vb should be
>>>>>> filled by r600_nomm_get_vb but latest can fail with EAGAIN.
>>>>>> Addresses: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16375
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> ?drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c | ? ?2 ++
>>>>>> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>>>> index f4fb88e..0df4a2b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>>>> @@ -541,6 +541,8 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
>>>>>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? ? ? ?r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>>>>> + ? ? ? if (!dev_priv->blit_vb)
>>>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return;
>>>>>
>>>>> r600_prepare_blit_copy returns an int so something like this would be better:
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r600_blit.c
>>>>> @@ -539,8 +539,10 @@ r600_prepare_blit_copy(struct drm_device *dev,
>>>>> struct drm_file *file_priv)
>>>>> ?{
>>>>> ? ? ? ?drm_radeon_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>>>>> ? ? ? ?DRM_DEBUG("\n");
>>>>> + ? ? ? int ret = r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>>>>
>>>>> - ? ? ? r600_nomm_get_vb(dev);
>>>>> + ? ? ? if (ret)
>>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? ? ? ?dev_priv->blit_vb->file_priv = file_priv;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 1.7.1.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i haven't any preferneces, the only thing is - it would be logical
>>>> to have every check in common style, so other cases
>>>> (r600_blit_copy, r600_blit_swap) should be fixed, nop?
>>>
>>> Those are void functions so there's nothing to return.
>>
>> i mean both of them call r600_nomm_get_vb and both of them
>> check if (!dev_priv->blit_vb), not return ?value.I mean would be
>> logical to check it the same way everytime r600_nomm_get_vb
>> gets called.
>
> yeah, either way. ?You just need to return an error in r600_prepare_blit_copy.
uh-huh, i've missed
> Alex
>
>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards.
>>>> ? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards.
>> ? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>
>>
>
--
Best regards.
? ? ?? Alexander Y. Fomichev <[email protected]>