diff mbox

drm/i915: Validate execbuffer start/length arguments against the target bo

Message ID 1448032264-31086-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Chris Wilson Nov. 20, 2015, 3:11 p.m. UTC
The offset within and the length of the command sequence to execute are
supplied by the user with respect to the batch buffer. We should be
validating that region is wholly contained within the batch buffer;
make it so.

Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Comments

Ville Syrjälä Nov. 20, 2015, 3:38 p.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:11:04PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The offset within and the length of the command sequence to execute are
> supplied by the user with respect to the batch buffer. We should be
> validating that region is wholly contained within the batch buffer;
> make it so.
> 
> Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> index a4c243cec4aa..e38284c1b89f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> @@ -1462,6 +1462,13 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>  	/* take note of the batch buffer before we might reorder the lists */
>  	batch_obj = eb_get_batch(eb);
>  
> +	if (args->batch_len > batch_obj->base.size ||
> +	    args->batch_start_offset > batch_obj->base.size - args->batch_len) {

lgtm. No possibility of overflow doing it that way.

Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

> +		DRM_DEBUG("Attempting to execute commands from beyond the bounds of the batch object\n");
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +		goto err;
> +	}
> +
>  	/* Move the objects en-masse into the GTT, evicting if necessary. */
>  	need_relocs = (args->flags & I915_EXEC_NO_RELOC) == 0;
>  	ret = i915_gem_execbuffer_reserve(ring, &eb->vmas, ctx, &need_relocs);
> -- 
> 2.6.2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Jani Nikula April 28, 2016, 8:51 a.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:11:04PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> The offset within and the length of the command sequence to execute are
>> supplied by the user with respect to the batch buffer. We should be
>> validating that region is wholly contained within the batch buffer;
>> make it so.
>> 
>> Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 7 +++++++
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>> index a4c243cec4aa..e38284c1b89f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>> @@ -1462,6 +1462,13 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>  	/* take note of the batch buffer before we might reorder the lists */
>>  	batch_obj = eb_get_batch(eb);
>>  
>> +	if (args->batch_len > batch_obj->base.size ||
>> +	    args->batch_start_offset > batch_obj->base.size - args->batch_len) {
>
> lgtm. No possibility of overflow doing it that way.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>
>> +		DRM_DEBUG("Attempting to execute commands from beyond the bounds of the batch object\n");
>> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>> +		goto err;
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	/* Move the objects en-masse into the GTT, evicting if necessary. */
>>  	need_relocs = (args->flags & I915_EXEC_NO_RELOC) == 0;
>>  	ret = i915_gem_execbuffer_reserve(ring, &eb->vmas, ctx, &need_relocs);
>> -- 
>> 2.6.2
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Jani Nikula April 28, 2016, 8:54 a.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:11:04PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> The offset within and the length of the command sequence to execute are
>>> supplied by the user with respect to the batch buffer. We should be
>>> validating that region is wholly contained within the batch buffer;
>>> make it so.
>>> 
>>> Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 7 +++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>>> index a4c243cec4aa..e38284c1b89f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>>> @@ -1462,6 +1462,13 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>>  	/* take note of the batch buffer before we might reorder the lists */
>>>  	batch_obj = eb_get_batch(eb);
>>>  
>>> +	if (args->batch_len > batch_obj->base.size ||
>>> +	    args->batch_start_offset > batch_obj->base.size - args->batch_len) {
>>
>> lgtm. No possibility of overflow doing it that way.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

I don't know what I fat fingered with the previous mail, but I just
stumbled upon this patch and noticed it never made it. Is this still
valid?

BR,
Jani.


>>
>>> +		DRM_DEBUG("Attempting to execute commands from beyond the bounds of the batch object\n");
>>> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>>> +		goto err;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>>  	/* Move the objects en-masse into the GTT, evicting if necessary. */
>>>  	need_relocs = (args->flags & I915_EXEC_NO_RELOC) == 0;
>>>  	ret = i915_gem_execbuffer_reserve(ring, &eb->vmas, ctx, &need_relocs);
>>> -- 
>>> 2.6.2
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Chris Wilson April 28, 2016, 9:02 a.m. UTC | #4
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:54:04AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:11:04PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> The offset within and the length of the command sequence to execute are
> >>> supplied by the user with respect to the batch buffer. We should be
> >>> validating that region is wholly contained within the batch buffer;
> >>> make it so.
> >>> 
> >>> Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 7 +++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> >>> index a4c243cec4aa..e38284c1b89f 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> >>> @@ -1462,6 +1462,13 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> >>>  	/* take note of the batch buffer before we might reorder the lists */
> >>>  	batch_obj = eb_get_batch(eb);
> >>>  
> >>> +	if (args->batch_len > batch_obj->base.size ||
> >>> +	    args->batch_start_offset > batch_obj->base.size - args->batch_len) {
> >>
> >> lgtm. No possibility of overflow doing it that way.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> 
> I don't know what I fat fingered with the previous mail, but I just
> stumbled upon this patch and noticed it never made it. Is this still
> valid?

Yup, I'd completely forgotten about this patch and it we don't have the
safeguard in the kernel yet.
-Chris
Dave Gordon April 28, 2016, 11:14 a.m. UTC | #5
On 28/04/16 10:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:54:04AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:11:04PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>> The offset within and the length of the command sequence to execute are
>>>>> supplied by the user with respect to the batch buffer. We should be
>>>>> validating that region is wholly contained within the batch buffer;
>>>>> make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>>>>> index a4c243cec4aa..e38284c1b89f 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
>>>>> @@ -1462,6 +1462,13 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>>>>   	/* take note of the batch buffer before we might reorder the lists */
>>>>>   	batch_obj = eb_get_batch(eb);
>>>>>
>>>>> +	if (args->batch_len > batch_obj->base.size ||
>>>>> +	    args->batch_start_offset > batch_obj->base.size - args->batch_len) {
>>>>
>>>> lgtm. No possibility of overflow doing it that way.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> I don't know what I fat fingered with the previous mail, but I just
>> stumbled upon this patch and noticed it never made it. Is this still
>> valid?
>
> Yup, I'd completely forgotten about this patch and it we don't have the
> safeguard in the kernel yet.
> -Chris
>

Hmm .. this will allow (len == 0) as long as start is in the range 
[0..size). But later, i915_gem_ringbuffer_submission() will interpret 
length 0 as meaning "sizeof batch_bo", which would be out-of-bounds if 
start != 0. Relevant code is:

         exec_len   = args->batch_len;
         exec_start = params->batch_obj_vm_offset +
                      params->args_batch_start_offset;

         if (exec_len == 0)
                 exec_len = params->batch_obj->base.size;

Should we permit len == 0 iff start == 0? Or take it to mean "from start 
to sizeof bo", and maybe put the replacement in the new check code 
rather than later, in submission()?

Of course batch length is not actually used on later hardware, and so 
the execlists version doesn't make this substitution, since any hardware 
that can do execlists only uses the BB-START form without a length. 
Nonetheless we might still want to validate and interpret this in a 
uniform manner ...

.Dave.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
index a4c243cec4aa..e38284c1b89f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -1462,6 +1462,13 @@  i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	/* take note of the batch buffer before we might reorder the lists */
 	batch_obj = eb_get_batch(eb);
 
+	if (args->batch_len > batch_obj->base.size ||
+	    args->batch_start_offset > batch_obj->base.size - args->batch_len) {
+		DRM_DEBUG("Attempting to execute commands from beyond the bounds of the batch object\n");
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto err;
+	}
+
 	/* Move the objects en-masse into the GTT, evicting if necessary. */
 	need_relocs = (args->flags & I915_EXEC_NO_RELOC) == 0;
 	ret = i915_gem_execbuffer_reserve(ring, &eb->vmas, ctx, &need_relocs);