From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann
 <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: mainline build failure due to f1e4c916f97f ("drm/edid: add EDID
 block count and size helpers")
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whfmwzjF4eBPYS6pHFqHVzJF3m=2h=gRWSRyHks8V=ABA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
References: <YpCUzStDnSgQLNFN@debian>
 <CAHk-=wg0uGAX5DYZq+tY2KeUAR8DtR91YE1y9CkPMKkKOyE4jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVatmNGPbSdRNQuwJEWAaPtqb3vBYRjvsuBpoRUnhEHj=X5GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wisQd8yiPX=SsK3eFiakKo713hq4SyqPWsJ-oyAmLFefQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YpIR67FMtTGCwARZ@debian>
 <CAHk-=wjuyHE=1wLgHncub8FfgeyYqfWYsy4-YrhAvq9991h_Aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wi_hJV0V=Ecg2dzbe2P_H1XKTu6VP_AtCH6u=tis31ayg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0-QyOQiieEvM0yQb43XbCtPmeao8UvoAsdFnjCxYPz7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whfmwzjF4eBPYS6pHFqHVzJF3m=2h=gRWSRyHks8V=ABA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 12:31:17 +0300
Message-ID: <87a6aztli2.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Cc: Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
 Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
 Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
 Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@gmail.com>,
 Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "dri-devel" <dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>

On Sat, 28 May 2022, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 11:59 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>
>> It's CONFIG_ARM_AEABI, which is normally set everywhere. Without this
>> option, you the kernel is built for the old 'OABI' that forces all non-packed
>> struct members to be at least 16-bit aligned.
>
> Looks like forced word (32 bit) alignment to me.
>
> I wonder how many other structures that messes up, but I committed the
> EDID fix for now.

Thanks for the fix, and the thorough commit message!

> This has presumably been broken for a long time, but maybe the
> affected targets don't typically use EDID and kernel modesetting, and
> only use some fixed display setup instead.
>
> Those structure definitions go back a _loong_ time (from a quick 'git
> blame' I see November 2008).
>
> But despite that, I did not mark my fix 'cc:stable' because I don't
> know if any of those machines affected by this bad arm ABI issue could
> possibly care.
>
> At least my tree hopefully now builds on them, with the BUILD_BUG_ON()
> that uncovered this.

Indeed the bug is ancient. I just threw in the BUILD_BUG_ON() on a whim
as an extra sanity check when doing pointer arithmetics on struct edid
*.

If there are affected machines, buffer overflows are the real danger due
to edid->extensions indicating the number of extensions.


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center