Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Y1trhRE3nK5iAY6q@mail.google.com> <Y1yetX1CHsr+fibp@mail.google.com>
 <CADnq5_Mod90O=tN26+Yi74WPYxpVtss+LG_+_HZyFv2EtzR+MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <202211011443.7BDB243D8D@keescook> <CADnq5_Ou9HnZjQx5WaAZW+iu24g_eS2hh25xhExeQjdMOXYfCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <202211011538.B7548FDDE@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <202211011538.B7548FDDE@keescook>
From:   Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:11:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CADnq5_PxjyL9kqdge-SOMkjLk176sPbSxM9Ng+N8f_-zj9NMqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [next] drm/radeon: Replace one-element array with
 flexible-array member
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        "Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 6:41 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 06:09:16PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 5:54 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > Does the ROM always only have a single byte there? This seems unlikely
> > > given the member "ucFakeEDIDLength" (and the code below).
> >
> > I'm not sure.  I'm mostly concerned about this:
> >
> >             record += fake_edid_record->ucFakeEDIDLength ?
> >                       fake_edid_record->ucFakeEDIDLength + 2 :
> >                       sizeof(ATOM_FAKE_EDID_PATCH_RECORD);
>
> But this is exactly what the code currently does, as noted in the commit
> log: "It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> results in no binary output differences.
>
> > Presumably the record should only exist if ucFakeEDIDLength is non 0,
> > but I don't know if there are some OEMs out there that just included
> > an empty record for some reason.  Maybe the code is wrong today and
> > there are some OEMs that include it and the array is already size 0.
> > In that case, Paulo's original patches are probably more correct.
>
> Right, but if true, that seems to be a distinctly separate bug fix?

You've convinced me.  Applied.

Thanks,

Alex

>
> --
> Kees Cook