[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/8] drm/edid: Document why we don't bounds check the DispID CEA block start/end

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 05:30:42PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:03 PM Ville Syrjala
> <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> >
> > After much head scratching I managed to convince myself that
> > for_each_displayid_db() has already done the bounds checks for
> > the DispID CEA data block. Which is why we don't need to repeat
> > them in cea_db_offsets(). To avoid having to go through that
> > pain again in the future add a comment which explains this fact.
> >
> > Cc: Andres Rodriguez <andresx7 at gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > index 3df5744026b0..0369a54e3d32 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> > @@ -4001,6 +4001,10 @@ cea_db_offsets(const u8 *cea, int *start, int *end)
> >          *   no non-DTD data.
> >          */
> >         if (cea[0] == DATA_BLOCK_CTA) {
> > +               /*
> > +                * for_each_displayid_db() has already verified
> > +                * that these stay within expected bounds.
> > +                */
> 
> I think the preferred format is to have the start of the comment be on
> the first line after the /* with that fixed:

Nope.

> Acked-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher at amd.com>
> 
> >                 *start = 3;
> >                 *end = *start + cea[2];
> >         } else if (cea[0] == CEA_EXT) {
> > --
> > 2.24.1
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dri-devel mailing list
> > dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel