linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/26] usb: gadget: introduce 'enabled' flag in struct usb

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]

Message-id: <55F84001.3060902@samsung.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:57:53 +0200
From:	Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga@...sung.com>
To:	balbi@...com, Krzysztof Opasiak <k.opasiak@...sung.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com,
	m.szyprowski@...sung.com, andrzej.p@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/26] usb: gadget: introduce 'enabled' flag in struct
 usb_ep

On 09/15/2015 05:43 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 05:37:27PM +0200, Krzysztof Opasiak wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 09/15/2015 04:26 PM, Robert Baldyga wrote:
>>> This patch introduces 'enabled' flag in struct usb_ep, and modifies
>>> usb_ep_enable() and usb_ep_disable() functions to encapsulate endpoint
>>> enabled/disabled state. It helps to avoid enabling endpoints which are
>>> already enabled, and disabling endpoints which are already disables.
>>>
>>> >From now USB functions don't have to remember current endpoint
>>> enable/disable state, as this state is now handled automatically which
>>> makes this API less bug-prone.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga@...sung.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/usb/gadget.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/usb/gadget.h b/include/linux/usb/gadget.h
>>> index 3f299e2..63375cd 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/usb/gadget.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/usb/gadget.h
>>> @@ -215,6 +215,7 @@ struct usb_ep {
>>>  	struct list_head	ep_list;
>>>  	struct usb_ep_caps	caps;
>>>  	bool			claimed;
>>> +	bool			enabled;
>>>  	unsigned		maxpacket:16;
>>>  	unsigned		maxpacket_limit:16;
>>>  	unsigned		max_streams:16;
>>> @@ -264,7 +265,15 @@ static inline void usb_ep_set_maxpacket_limit(struct usb_ep *ep,
>>>   */
>>>  static inline int usb_ep_enable(struct usb_ep *ep)
>>>  {
>>> -	return ep->ops->enable(ep, ep->desc);
>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!ep->enabled) {
>>> +		ret = ep->ops->enable(ep, ep->desc);
>>> +		if (!ret)
>>> +			ep->enabled = true;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  /**
>>> @@ -281,7 +290,15 @@ static inline int usb_ep_enable(struct usb_ep *ep)
>>>   */
>>>  static inline int usb_ep_disable(struct usb_ep *ep)
>>>  {
>>> -	return ep->ops->disable(ep);
>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	if (ep->enabled) {
>>> +		ret = ep->ops->disable(ep);
>>> +		if (!ret)
>>> +			ep->enabled = false;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>>  }
>>>
>>
>> Personally I don't like this convention. In my opinion usb_ep_disable() &
>> usb_ep_enable() should fail if ep is already disabled/enabled. Then in
>> function code we should check if endpoint is enabled (maybe even we should
>> have usb_ep_is_enabled()) and call disable only when it is really enabled.
> 
> usb_ep_is_enabled() should be a good addition but I don't see an issue
> ignoring usb_ep_enabled() for something that's already enabled.
> 
> Imagine if you got an error when you tried to push the light switch to
> the 'on' position while the light was already on :-p
> 
> I do think, though, that this can be simplified by returning early if
> already enabled:
> 
> usb_ep_enable()
> {
> 	if (ep->enabled)
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	return ep->ops->enable(ep, ep->desc);
> }
> 
> and likewise for usb_ep_disable()

We can't do that, because we need to toggle ep->enable flag.

Thanks,
Robert
--
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/