| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1431541925.3625.52.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:32:05 -0600
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
Cc: eric.auger@...com, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org, agraf@...e.de,
Bharat.Bhushan@...escale.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] VFIO: platform: add reset_list and
register/unregister functions
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 16:27 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> vfio_platform_common now stores a lists of available reset functions.
> Two functions are exposed to register/unregister a reset function. A
> reset function is paired with a compat string.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h | 13 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> index abcff7a..edbf24c 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@
>
> #include "vfio_platform_private.h"
>
> +struct list_head reset_list;
> +LIST_HEAD(reset_list);
> +
Redundant? Static?
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(driver_lock);
>
> static int vfio_platform_regions_init(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev)
> @@ -511,6 +514,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_platform_probe_common);
> struct vfio_platform_device *vfio_platform_remove_common(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct vfio_platform_device *vdev;
> + struct vfio_platform_reset_node *iter, *tmp;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(iter, tmp, &reset_list, link) {
> + list_del(&iter->link);
> + kfree(iter->compat);
> + kfree(iter);
> + }
This doesn't make sense. We allow reset functions to be registered and
unregistered, but we forget them all when any device is released?!
>
> vdev = vfio_del_group_dev(dev);
> if (vdev)
> @@ -519,3 +529,56 @@ struct vfio_platform_device *vfio_platform_remove_common(struct device *dev)
> return vdev;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_platform_remove_common);
> +
> +int vfio_platform_register_reset(char *compat, struct module *reset_owner,
> + vfio_platform_reset_fn_t reset)
> +{
> + struct vfio_platform_reset_node *node, *iter;
> + bool found = false;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(iter, &reset_list, link) {
> + if (!strcmp(iter->compat, compat)) {
> + found = true;
Just return errno here
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + if (found)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + node = kmalloc(sizeof(*node), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!node)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + node->compat = kstrdup(compat, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!node->compat)
Leaking node
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + node->owner = reset_owner;
> + node->reset = reset;
> +
> + list_add(&node->link, &reset_list);
Isn't this racy? Don't we need some locks around the list?
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_platform_register_reset);
> +
> +int vfio_platform_unregister_reset(char *compat)
> +{
> + struct vfio_platform_reset_node *iter;
> + bool found = false;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(iter, &reset_list, link) {
> + if (!strcmp(iter->compat, compat)) {
Return errno here
> + found = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + if (!found)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + list_del(&iter->link);
Racy
> + kfree(iter->compat);
> + kfree(iter);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_platform_unregister_reset);
> +
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h
> index 5d31e04..da2d60b 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h
> @@ -69,6 +69,15 @@ struct vfio_platform_device {
> int (*get_irq)(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev, int i);
> };
>
> +typedef int (*vfio_platform_reset_fn_t)(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev);
Seems like this ought to be in a non-private header if we're exporting
the [un]register functions.
> +
> +struct vfio_platform_reset_node {
> + struct list_head link;
> + char *compat;
> + struct module *owner;
> + vfio_platform_reset_fn_t reset;
> +};
> +
> extern int vfio_platform_probe_common(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
> struct device *dev);
> extern struct vfio_platform_device *vfio_platform_remove_common
> @@ -82,4 +91,8 @@ extern int vfio_platform_set_irqs_ioctl(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
> unsigned start, unsigned count,
> void *data);
>
> +extern int vfio_platform_register_reset(char *compat, struct module *owner,
> + vfio_platform_reset_fn_t reset);
> +extern int vfio_platform_unregister_reset(char *compat);
> +
> #endif /* VFIO_PLATFORM_PRIVATE_H */
--
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