[PATCH] video: fbdev: cirrusfb: check pixclock to avoid divide by zero
George Kennedy
george.kennedy at oracle.com
Wed Oct 27 15:22:04 UTC 2021
On 10/27/2021 2:53 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 3:13 AM George Kennedy
> <george.kennedy at oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 10/26/2021 1:12 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 5:48 PM George Kennedy
>>> <george.kennedy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2021 10:11 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 3:38 PM George Kennedy
>>>>> <george.kennedy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/26/2021 4:30 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 9:37 PM George Kennedy
>>>>>>> <george.kennedy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2021 3:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 02:01:30PM -0500, George Kennedy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Do a sanity check on pixclock value before using it as a divisor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Syzkaller reported a divide error in cirrusfb_check_pixclock.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
>>>>>>>>>> CPU: 0 PID: 14938 Comm: cirrusfb_test Not tainted 5.15.0-rc6 #1
>>>>>>>>>> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2
>>>>>>>>>> RIP: 0010:cirrusfb_check_var+0x6f1/0x1260
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>>>>>>> fb_set_var+0x398/0xf90
>>>>>>>>>> do_fb_ioctl+0x4b8/0x6f0
>>>>>>>>>> fb_ioctl+0xeb/0x130
>>>>>>>>>> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x19d/0x220
>>>>>>>>>> do_syscall_64+0x3a/0x80
>>>>>>>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: George Kennedy <george.kennedy at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -477,6 +477,9 @@ static int cirrusfb_check_pixclock(const struct fb_var_screeninfo *var,
>>>>>>>>>> struct cirrusfb_info *cinfo = info->par;
>>>>>>>>>> unsigned maxclockidx = var->bits_per_pixel >> 3;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + if (!var->pixclock)
>>>>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> This is not correct: fbdev drivers should round up invalid values,
>>>>>>> and only return an error if rounding up cannot yield a valid value.
>>>>>> What default value would you recommend? Here are examples of some of the
>>>>>> possible cirrusfb pixclock values:
>>>>>> 40000: 25MHz
>>>>>> 20000: 50Mhz
>>>>>> 12500: 80Mhz
>>>>> You should pick the lowest supported value.
>>>> In bestclock() the frequency value ("freq") is not allowed to go below 8000.
>>>>
>>>> if (freq < 8000)
>>>> freq = 8000;
>>>>
>>>> If pixclock is passed in as zero to cirrusfb_check_pixclock(), is it ok
>>>> to then set the value of pixclock to 125000, which will result in "freq"
>>>> being set to 8000 (or adjust the passed in pixclock value to make sure
>>>> "freq" does not get below 8000)?
>>> No, clock rate is the inverse of clock period.
>>> So the smallest clock period (fb_var_screeninfo.pixclock) corresponds
>>> to the largest clock rate (freq in bestclock()).
>> How about this?
>>
>> This gets the frequency derived from pixclock to maxclock or rounds up
>> pixclock to get the frequency as close to maxclock as possible.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c
>> index 93802ab..2e8e620 100644
>> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c
>> @@ -620,6 +620,18 @@ static int cirrusfb_check_var(struct
>> fb_var_screeninfo *var,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + if (!var->pixclock) {
>> + long maxclock;
>> + unsigned maxclockidx = var->bits_per_pixel >> 3;
>> +
>> + maxclock =
>> cirrusfb_board_info[cinfo->btype].maxclock[maxclockidx];
>> +
>> + var->pixclock = KHZ2PICOS(maxclock);
>> + while (PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock) > maxclock) {
>> + var->pixclock++;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> if (cirrusfb_check_pixclock(var, info))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> The work can't be done in cirrusfb_check_pixclock() as var->pixclock is
>> read-only because "var" is "const struct fb_var_screeninfo *var".
> Perhaps the const should be dropped from the var parameter, so the
> rounding can be done in the function where it makes most sense,
> and where most of the above operations are already done?
>
> Then, you can simplify:
>
> - freq = PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock);
> + freq = PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock ? : 1);
>
> and change the "if (freq > maxclock) return -EINVAL" to use maxclock
> instead.
Geert,
Does this look ok?
diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c
index 93802ab..3d47c34 100644
--- a/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c
+++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/cirrusfb.c
@@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ static int cirrusfb_check_mclk(struct fb_info *info,
long freq)
return 0;
}
-static int cirrusfb_check_pixclock(const struct fb_var_screeninfo *var,
+static int cirrusfb_check_pixclock(struct fb_var_screeninfo *var,
struct fb_info *info)
{
long freq;
@@ -478,9 +478,7 @@ static int cirrusfb_check_pixclock(const struct
fb_var_screeninfo *var,
unsigned maxclockidx = var->bits_per_pixel >> 3;
/* convert from ps to kHz */
- freq = PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock);
-
- dev_dbg(info->device, "desired pixclock: %ld kHz\n", freq);
+ freq = PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock ? : 1);
maxclock = cirrusfb_board_info[cinfo->btype].maxclock[maxclockidx];
cinfo->multiplexing = 0;
@@ -488,11 +486,13 @@ static int cirrusfb_check_pixclock(const struct
fb_var_screeninfo *var,
/* If the frequency is greater than we can support, we might be
able
* to use multiplexing for the video mode */
if (freq > maxclock) {
- dev_err(info->device,
- "Frequency greater than maxclock (%ld kHz)\n",
- maxclock);
- return -EINVAL;
+ var->pixclock = KHZ2PICOS(maxclock);
+
+ while ((freq = PICOS2KHZ(var->pixclock)) > maxclock)
+ var->pixclock++;
}
+ dev_dbg(info->device, "desired pixclock: %ld kHz\n", freq);
+
/*
* Additional constraint: 8bpp uses DAC clock doubling to allow
maximum
* pixel clock
Is the pixclock round-up still needed? Without it the frequency may be
slightly above maxclock in some cases.
Thank you,
George
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list