| 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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:39:39 +0900
From: "kyungsik.lee" <kyungsik.lee@....com>
To: Chanho Min <chanho.min@....com>, 'Chris Ball' <cjb@...top.org>
CC: 'Venkatraman S' <svenkatr@...com>, raphael.andy.lee@...il.com,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4] mmc: core: Remove bounce buffer in mmc_send_cxd_data()
Hello Chanho Min,
On 2012-08-02 오전 11:50, Chanho Min wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kyungsik Lee [mailto:kyungsik.lee@....com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 10:06 AM
>> To: Chris Ball
>> Cc: Venkatraman S; Jaehoon Chung; raphael.andy.lee@...il.com; linux-
>> mmc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Kyungsik Lee
>> Subject: [PATCH RESEND v4] mmc: core: Remove bounce buffer in
>> mmc_send_cxd_data()
>>
>> It is expected that Extended CSD register(the size of this register
>> is larger than CID/CSD) will be referenced more frequently as more
>> fields have been added to Extended CSD and it seems that it is not
>> a good option to double the memory used.
>>
>> This patch is intended to avoid the use of bounce buffer for reading
>> Extended CSD register in mmc_send_cxd_data().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: S, Venkatraman <svenkatr@...com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Handling on-stack buffer if it's used in caller.
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Remove unnecesary code.
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>> - Modify codes based-on S, Venkatraman's comments.
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c | 54
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> -
>> 1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
>> index 0ed2cc5..920a017 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc_ops.c
>> @@ -239,13 +239,19 @@ mmc_send_cxd_data(struct mmc_card *card, struct
> mmc_host
>> *host,
>> struct mmc_data data = {0};
>> struct scatterlist sg;
>> void *data_buf;
>> + int is_on_stack;
>>
>> - /* dma onto stack is unsafe/nonportable, but callers to this
>> - * routine normally provide temporary on-stack buffers ...
>> - */
>> - data_buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
>> - if (data_buf == NULL)
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> + is_on_stack = object_is_on_stack(buf);
>> + if (is_on_stack) {
>> +
>> + /* dma onto stack is unsafe/nonportable, but callers to this
>> + * routine normally provide temporary on-stack buffers ...
>> + */
>> + data_buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (data_buf == NULL)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + } else
>> + data_buf = buf;
>>
>> mrq.cmd = &cmd;
>> mrq.data = &data;
>> @@ -280,8 +286,10 @@ mmc_send_cxd_data(struct mmc_card *card, struct
> mmc_host
>> *host,
>>
>> mmc_wait_for_req(host, &mrq);
>>
>> - memcpy(buf, data_buf, len);
>> - kfree(data_buf);
>> + if (is_on_stack) {
>> + memcpy(buf, data_buf, len);
>> + kfree(data_buf);
>> + }
>>
>> if (cmd.error)
>> return cmd.error;
>> @@ -294,24 +302,32 @@ mmc_send_cxd_data(struct mmc_card *card, struct
> mmc_host
>> *host,
>> int mmc_send_csd(struct mmc_card *card, u32 *csd)
>> {
>> int ret, i;
>> + u32 *csd_tmp;
>>
>> if (!mmc_host_is_spi(card->host))
>> return mmc_send_cxd_native(card->host, card->rca << 16,
>> csd, MMC_SEND_CSD);
>>
>> - ret = mmc_send_cxd_data(card, card->host, MMC_SEND_CSD, csd, 16);
>> + csd_tmp = kmalloc(16, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!csd_tmp)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + ret = mmc_send_cxd_data(card, card->host, MMC_SEND_CSD, csd_tmp,
> 16);
>> if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> + goto err;
>>
>> for (i = 0;i < 4;i++)
>> - csd[i] = be32_to_cpu(csd[i]);
>> + csd[i] = be32_to_cpu(csd_tmp[i]);
>>
>> - return 0;
>> +err:
>> + kfree(csd_tmp);
>> + return ret;
>> }
> If we can handle for the on-stack buffer in mmc_send_cxd_data, why do we
> need callers's modification as bellows?
As you comment above, on-stack buffer can be handled with no better
performance gain.
In case of both mmc_send_cid() and mmc_send_csd(), on-stack buffers have
not been allocated
in the upper callers to the two functions(you may check it in the upper
callers).
And you will find out the reason why such a modification below is needed
in the mail thread
(Reply to S, Venkatraman's comment).
Thanks
Kyungsik Lee
>> int mmc_send_cid(struct mmc_host *host, u32 *cid)
>> {
>> int ret, i;
>> + u32 *cid_tmp;
>>
>> if (!mmc_host_is_spi(host)) {
>> if (!host->card)
>> @@ -320,14 +336,20 @@ int mmc_send_cid(struct mmc_host *host, u32 *cid)
>> cid, MMC_SEND_CID);
>> }
>>
>> - ret = mmc_send_cxd_data(NULL, host, MMC_SEND_CID, cid, 16);
>> + cid_tmp = kmalloc(16, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!cid_tmp)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + ret = mmc_send_cxd_data(NULL, host, MMC_SEND_CID, cid_tmp, 16);
>> if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> + goto err;
>>
>> for (i = 0;i < 4;i++)
>> - cid[i] = be32_to_cpu(cid[i]);
>> + cid[i] = be32_to_cpu(cid_tmp[i]);
>>
>> - return 0;
>> +err:
>> + kfree(cid_tmp);
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> int mmc_send_ext_csd(struct mmc_card *card, u8 *ext_csd)
>> --
>> 1.7.0.4
> Thanks
> Chanho Min
>
>
--
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