| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:03:15 +0200
From: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
khali@...ux-fr.org, ben-linux@...ff.org,
Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Mocean Laboratories <info@...ean-labs.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] timberdale: mfd_cell is now implicitly available
to drivers
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 05:58:44PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:56:35AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 13:20:31 +0200
> >> > Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Grant,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:05:22PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> > Gah. Not all devices instantiated via mfd will be an mfd device,
> >> >> > which means that the driver may very well expect an *entirely
> >> >> > different* platform_device pointer; which further means a very high
> >> >> > potential of incorrectly dereferenced structures (as evidenced by a
> >> >> > patch series that is not bisectable). For instance, the xilinx ip
> >> >> > cores are used by more than just mfd.
> >> >> I agree. Since the vast majority of the MFD subdevices are MFD
> >> >> specific IPs, I overlooked that part. The impacted drivers are the
> >> >> timberdale and the DaVinci voice codec ones.
> >>
> >> Another option is you could do this for MFD devices:
> >>
> >> struct mfd_device {
> >> struct platform_devce pdev;
> >> struct mfd_cell *cell;
> >> };
> >>
> >> However, that requires that drivers using the mfd_cell will *never*
> >> get instantiated outside of the mfd infrastructure, and there is no
> >> way to protect against this so it is probably a bad idea.
> >>
> >> Or, mfd_cell could be added to platform_device directly which would
> >> *by far* be the safest option at the cost of every platform_device
> >> having a mostly unused mfd_cell pointer. Not a significant cost in my
> >> opinion.
> > I thought about this one, but I had the impression people would want to kill
> > me for adding an MFD specific pointer to platform_device. I guess it's worth
> > giving it a try since it would be a simple and safe solution.
> > I'll look at it later this weekend.
> >
> > Thanks for the input.
>
> [cc'ing gregkh because we're talking about modifying struct platform_device]
>
> I'll back you up on this one. It is a far better solution than the
> alternatives. At least with mfd, it covers a large set of devices. I
> think there is a strong argument for doing this. Or alternatively,
> the particular interesting fields from mfd_cell could be added to
> platform_device. What information do child devices need access to?
In some cases, they need the whole cell to clone it. So I'm up for adding an
mfd_cell pointer to the platform_device structure.
Below is a tentative patch. This is a first step and would fix all
regressions. I tried to keep the MFD dependencies as small as possible, which
is why I placed the pdev->mfd_cell building code in mfd-core.c
The second step would be to get rid of mfd_get_data() and have all subdrivers
going back to the regular platform_data way. They would no longer be dependant
on the MFD code except for those who really need it. In that case they could
just call mfd_get_cell() and get full access to their MFD cell.
---
drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
include/linux/mfd/core.h | 7 +++++--
include/linux/platform_device.h | 5 +++++
3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
index d01574d..c0fc1c0 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
@@ -18,6 +18,21 @@
#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
+static int mfd_platform_add_cell(struct platform_device *pdev, const struct mfd_cell *cell)
+{
+ struct mfd_cell *c;
+
+ if (cell == NULL)
+ return 0;
+
+ c = kmemdup(cell, sizeof(struct mfd_cell), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (c == NULL)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ pdev->mfd_cell = c;
+ return 0;
+}
+
int mfd_cell_enable(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
const struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(pdev);
@@ -75,7 +90,7 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
pdev->dev.parent = parent;
- ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev, cell, sizeof(*cell));
+ ret = mfd_platform_add_cell(pdev, cell);
if (ret)
goto fail_res;
@@ -104,17 +119,17 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
if (!cell->ignore_resource_conflicts) {
ret = acpi_check_resource_conflict(res);
if (ret)
- goto fail_res;
+ goto fail_cell;
}
}
ret = platform_device_add_resources(pdev, res, cell->num_resources);
if (ret)
- goto fail_res;
+ goto fail_cell;
ret = platform_device_add(pdev);
if (ret)
- goto fail_res;
+ goto fail_cell;
if (cell->pm_runtime_no_callbacks)
pm_runtime_no_callbacks(&pdev->dev);
@@ -123,7 +138,8 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
return 0;
-/* platform_device_del(pdev); */
+fail_cell:
+ kfree(pdev->mfd_cell);
fail_res:
kfree(res);
fail_device:
@@ -171,6 +187,7 @@ static int mfd_remove_devices_fn(struct device *dev, void *c)
if (!*usage_count || (cell->usage_count < *usage_count))
*usage_count = cell->usage_count;
+ kfree(pdev->mfd_cell);
platform_device_unregister(pdev);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/core.h b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
index ad1b19a..0e4d3a6 100644
--- a/include/linux/mfd/core.h
+++ b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ extern int mfd_clone_cell(const char *cell, const char **clones,
*/
static inline const struct mfd_cell *mfd_get_cell(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- return pdev->dev.platform_data;
+ return pdev->mfd_cell;
}
/*
@@ -95,7 +95,10 @@ static inline const struct mfd_cell *mfd_get_cell(struct platform_device *pdev)
*/
static inline void *mfd_get_data(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
+ if (pdev->mfd_cell != NULL)
+ return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
+ else
+ return pdev->dev.platform_data;
}
extern int mfd_add_devices(struct device *parent, int id,
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h b/include/linux/platform_device.h
index d96db98..734d254 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_device.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
#include <linux/device.h>
#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
+struct mfd_cell;
+
struct platform_device {
const char * name;
int id;
@@ -23,6 +25,9 @@ struct platform_device {
const struct platform_device_id *id_entry;
+ /* MFD cell pointer */
+ struct mfd_cell *mfd_cell;
+
/* arch specific additions */
struct pdev_archdata archdata;
};
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists