linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform: x86: dell-smo8800: Dell Latitude freefall driver (ACPI SMO8800/SMO8810)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 7 May 2014 17:29:41 +0100
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform: x86: dell-smo8800: Dell Latitude freefall
 driver (ACPI SMO8800/SMO8810)

> +static irqreturn_t smo8800_interrupt_quick(int irq, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct smo8800_device *smo8800 = data;
> +	atomic_inc(&smo8800->count);
> +	wake_up_interruptible(&smo8800->misc_wait);
> +	return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t smo8800_interrupt_thread(int irq, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct smo8800_device *smo8800 = data;
> +	dev_info(smo8800->dev, "detected free fall\n");

printk should be fast enough not to justify a thread, in fact the
threaded IRQ overhead is going to be higher than the printk IMHO.

I'm not entirely sure a printk is the useful response here either ?


> +static ssize_t smo8800_misc_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> +				 size_t count, loff_t *pos)
> +{
> +	struct smo8800_device *smo8800 = container_of(file->private_data,
> +					 struct smo8800_device, miscdev);
> +
> +	DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
> +	u32 data;
> +	unsigned char byte_data;
> +	ssize_t retval = 1;
> +
> +	if (count < 1)
> +		return -EINVAL;

How can this occur ??

> +
> +	add_wait_queue(&smo8800->misc_wait, &wait);
> +	while (true) {
> +		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> +		data = atomic_xchg(&smo8800->count, 0);
> +		if (data)
> +			break;
> +
> +		if (file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) {
> +			retval = -EAGAIN;
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (signal_pending(current)) {
> +			retval = -ERESTARTSYS;
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +
> +		schedule();
> +	}

wait_event_interruptible ?

> +	if (copy_to_user(buf, &byte_data, sizeof(byte_data)))
> +		retval = -EFAULT;

put_user


> +static int smo8800_add(struct acpi_device *device)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +	struct smo8800_device *smo8800;
> +
> +	if (!device)
> +		return -EINVAL;

How can this occur ??

> +	atomic_set(&smo8800->count, 0);

Not needed - you can't see a count until it is open

> +	dev_info(&device->dev, "device /dev/freefall registered with IRQ %d\n",
> +		 smo8800->irq);

dev_dbg would be more appropriate. If every driver reported its
registration we'd drown in logs

> +	dev_info(&device->dev, "device /dev/freefall unregistered\n");

Ditto


Alan
--
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/