[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <51B703D7.8050804@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:02:47 +0200
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-mapping: Add BUG_ON for uninitialized dma_ops
Hello,
On 6/11/2013 4:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Marek]
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com> wrote:
> > Check that dma_ops are initialized correctly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
> > ---
> > Functions dma_mmap_attrs(), dma_get_sgtable_attrs()
> > already have this checking.
> >
> > ---
> > include/asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h b/include/asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h
> > index de8bf89..d430cab 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h
> > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ static inline dma_addr_t dma_map_single_attrs(struct device *dev, void *ptr,
> > dma_addr_t addr;
> >
> > kmemcheck_mark_initialized(ptr, size);
> > + BUG_ON(!ops);
>
> Does this actually help anything? I expected that if "ops" is NULL,
> we would just oops anyway when we attempted to call "ops->map_page()"
> because we already trap null pointer dereferences. At least, when I
> tried leaving a pci_bus.ops pointer NULL, I got a nice panic and
> backtrace even without adding an explicit BUG_ON().
>
> I cc'd Marek, who added the similar BUG_ON()s in dma_mmap_attrs() and
> dma_get_sgtable_attrs() with d2b7428eb0 and 64ccc9c033.
I think that I've copied it from dma_alloc_coherent() in microblaze. You
are right that lack
of this check will also trigger oops in ops==NULL case, but I think that
adding explicit check
in all functions, which use it, is a good idea. It serves as a kind of
documentation and
emphasizes that missing ops is really an issue.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
--
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