[AMD Official Use Only]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wentland, Harry <harry.wentl...@amd.com>
> Sent: October 5, 2021 2:04 PM
> To: Zuo, Jerry <jerry....@amd.com>; Doug Anderson
> <diand...@chromium.org>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>; dri-
> de...@lists.freedesktop.org; ge...@linux-m68k.org; oliver.s...@intel.com;
> Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch>; David Airlie <airl...@linux.ie>; Jani Nikula
> <jani.nik...@intel.com>; Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>; Maarten
> Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>; Maxime Ripard
> <mrip...@kernel.org>; Sam Ravnborg <s...@ravnborg.org>; Thomas
> Zimmermann <tzimmerm...@suse.de>; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
> Siqueira, Rodrigo <rodrigo.sique...@amd.com>; Kuogee Hsieh
> <khs...@codeaurora.org>
> Subject: Re: connector_bad_edid() is broken (was: Re: [PATCH] drm/edid:
> Fix crash with zero/invalid EDID)
>
>
>
> On 2021-10-05 11:25, Zuo, Jerry wrote:
> > [AMD Official Use Only]
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org>
> >> Sent: October 5, 2021 11:14 AM
> >> To: Zuo, Jerry <jerry....@amd.com>
> >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>; dri-
> >> de...@lists.freedesktop.org; ge...@linux-m68k.org;
> >> oliver.s...@intel.com; Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch>; David Airlie
> >> <airl...@linux.ie>; Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>; Linus
> >> Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>; Maarten Lankhorst
> >> <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>; Maxime Ripard
> >> <mrip...@kernel.org>; Sam Ravnborg <s...@ravnborg.org>; Thomas
> >> Zimmermann <tzimmerm...@suse.de>; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
> >> Wentland, Harry <harry.wentl...@amd.com>; Siqueira, Rodrigo
> >> <rodrigo.sique...@amd.com>; Kuogee Hsieh <khs...@codeaurora.org>
> >> Subject: Re: connector_bad_edid() is broken (was: Re: [PATCH] drm/edid:
> >> Fix crash with zero/invalid EDID)
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 6:33 AM Zuo, Jerry <jerry....@amd.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> BTW I believe connector_bad_edid() itself is broken since commit
> >>>> e11f5bd8228f ("drm: Add support for DP 1.4 Compliance edid
> >>>> corruption test"). Before we've even allocated the memory for the
> >>>> extension blocks that code now assumes edid[0x7e] is to be 100%
> >>>> trusted and goes and calculates the checksum on a block based on
> >>>> that. So that's likely going to be pointing somewhere beyond the
> >>>> base block into memory we've not even allocated. So anyone who
> >>>> wanted could craft a bogus EDID and maybe get something interesting
> >>>> to
> >> happen.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would be good if someone could fix that while at it. Or just revert
> >>>> the offending commit if there is no simple solution immediately in sight.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact that we're parsing entirely untrustworthy crap in the
> >>>> kernel always worries me. Either we need super careful review of
> >>>> all relevant code, and/or we need to think about moving the parser
> >>>> out of
> >> the kernel.
> >>>> I was considering playing around with the usermode helper stuff.
> >>>> IIRC there is a way to embed the userspace binary into the kernel
> >>>> and just fire it up when needed. But so far it's been the usual
> >>>> -ENOTIME
> >> for me...
> >>>>
> >>> [AMD Official Use Only]
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ville:
> >>>
> >>> Yhea, it is pretty old change from two years ago, and it is no
> >>> long valid
> >> anymore. Please simply drop it.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Jerry
> >>
> >> I've cut out other bits from this email and changed the subject line
> >> since I think this is an issue unrelated to the one my original patch was
> fixing.
> >>
> >> I don't actually know a ton about DP compliance testing, but I
> >> attempted to try to be helpful and revert commit e11f5bd8228f ("drm:
> >> Add support for DP 1.4 Compliance edid corruption test"). It wasn't
> >> too hard to deal with the conflicts in the revert itself, but then
> >> things didn't compile because there are two places that use
> >> `real_edid_checksum` and that goes away if I revert the patch.
> >>
> >> I've made an attempt to fix the problem by just adding a bounds check.
> >> Perhaps you can see if that looks good to you:
> >>
> >> https://lore.
> kernel.org%2Fr%2F20211005081022.1.Ib059f9c23c2611cb5a9d760e7d0a700c1
> >>
> 295928d%40changeid&data=04%7C01%7CJerry.Zuo%40amd.com%7C90
> >>
> b948659454400cedd308d98812c339%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d
> >> %7C0%7C0%7C637690436453163864%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
> WIj
> >>
> oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1
> >>
> 000&sdata=OtSngWlYyDc1NbNSgAeALqN3nF%2Bnw08nJ068cpAKZJk%3
> >> D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> -Doug
> >
> > The patch used for DP1.4 compliance edid corruption test. Let me double
> check if edid corruption test could be passed without the patch.
> >
>
> Can you try the CTS test with Doug's fix?
>
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/457537/
>
> Harry
Yes, I'll give a try on that.
