Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:56:30 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To:     Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>
Cc:     Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gma/gma500: fix a memory disclosure bug due to
 uninitialized bytes
Message-ID: <20191022085630.GZ11828@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>,
        Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20191018042953.31099-1-kjlu@umn.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191018042953.31099-1-kjlu@umn.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:29:53PM -0500, Kangjie Lu wrote:
> `best_clock` is an object that may be sent out. Object `clock`
> contains uninitialized bytes that are copied to `best_clock`,
> which leads to memory disclosure and information leak.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/cdv_intel_display.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/cdv_intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/cdv_intel_display.c
> index f56852a503e8..8b784947ed3b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/cdv_intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/cdv_intel_display.c
> @@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ static bool cdv_intel_find_dp_pll(const struct gma_limit_t *limit,
>  	struct gma_crtc *gma_crtc = to_gma_crtc(crtc);
>  	struct gma_clock_t clock;
>  
> +	memset(&clock, 0, sizeof(clock));

I guess whatever analyzer you use for this doesn't see past the ->clock
vfunc call, so shouldn't be a real issue. Also, it's not an information
disclosure since we only ever leak this to other kernel code, never
userspace.

But I guess doesn't hurt, so applied.
-Daniel

> +
>  	switch (refclk) {
>  	case 27000:
>  		if (target < 200000) {
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch