summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorBeata Michalska <b.michalska@samsung.com>2015-03-04 15:02:49 +0100
committerInki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com>2015-04-13 11:39:40 +0900
commite44bf6b7a50e331a1a97c23d726e39726b914dc8 (patch)
treec3c47e9ad2132264349c145e2e85852d138396f4
parente752747b98ae64ff0d1484a3b1b812fd2cafed53 (diff)
downloadlinux-e44bf6b7a50e331a1a97c23d726e39726b914dc8.tar.bz2
drm/exynos/ipp: Validate buffer enqueue requests
As for now there is no validation of incoming buffer enqueue request as far as the gem buffers are being concerned. This might lead to some undesired cases when the driver tries to operate on invalid buffers (wiht no valid gem object handle i.e.). Add some basic checks to rule out those potential issues. Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <b.michalska@samsung.com> [mszyprow: rebased onto v4.0-rc1 and adapted to recent ipp changes] Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com>
-rw-r--r--drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_ipp.c44
1 files changed, 44 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_ipp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_ipp.c
index d5ad17dfc24d..b7f1cbc46cc2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_ipp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_ipp.c
@@ -476,6 +476,45 @@ err_clear:
return ret;
}
+static int ipp_validate_mem_node(struct drm_device *drm_dev,
+ struct drm_exynos_ipp_mem_node *m_node,
+ struct drm_exynos_ipp_cmd_node *c_node)
+{
+ struct drm_exynos_ipp_config *ipp_cfg;
+ unsigned int num_plane;
+ unsigned long min_size, size;
+ unsigned int bpp;
+ int i;
+
+ /* The property id should already be varified */
+ ipp_cfg = &c_node->property.config[m_node->prop_id];
+ num_plane = drm_format_num_planes(ipp_cfg->fmt);
+
+ /**
+ * This is a rather simplified validation of a memory node.
+ * It basically verifies provided gem object handles
+ * and the buffer sizes with respect to current configuration.
+ * This is not the best that can be done
+ * but it seems more than enough
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < num_plane; ++i) {
+ if (!m_node->buf_info.handles[i]) {
+ DRM_ERROR("invalid handle for plane %d\n", i);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ bpp = drm_format_plane_cpp(ipp_cfg->fmt, i);
+ min_size = (ipp_cfg->sz.hsize * ipp_cfg->sz.vsize * bpp) >> 3;
+ size = exynos_drm_gem_get_size(drm_dev,
+ m_node->buf_info.handles[i],
+ c_node->filp);
+ if (min_size > size) {
+ DRM_ERROR("invalid size for plane %d\n", i);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int ipp_put_mem_node(struct drm_device *drm_dev,
struct drm_exynos_ipp_cmd_node *c_node,
struct drm_exynos_ipp_mem_node *m_node)
@@ -552,6 +591,11 @@ static struct drm_exynos_ipp_mem_node
}
mutex_lock(&c_node->mem_lock);
+ if (ipp_validate_mem_node(drm_dev, m_node, c_node)) {
+ ipp_put_mem_node(drm_dev, c_node, m_node);
+ mutex_unlock(&c_node->mem_lock);
+ return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
+ }
list_add_tail(&m_node->list, &c_node->mem_list[qbuf->ops_id]);
mutex_unlock(&c_node->mem_lock);