| 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: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:25:52 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
Cc: "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [char-misc-next v3 4/8] watchdog: mei_wdt: add status debugfs
entry
On 12/23/2015 02:48 PM, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>>
>> On 12/21/2015 03:17 PM, Tomas Winkler wrote:
>>> Add entry for dumping current watchdog internal state
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2: new in the series
>>> V3: rebase
>>> drivers/watchdog/mei_wdt.c | 88
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/mei_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/mei_wdt.c
>>> index 5b28a1e95ac1..ab9aec218d69 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/mei_wdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/mei_wdt.c
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/module.h>
>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>> +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
>>> #include <linux/watchdog.h>
>>>
>>> #include <linux/uuid.h>
>>> @@ -54,6 +55,24 @@ enum mei_wdt_state {
>>> MEI_WDT_STOPPING,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
>>> +static const char *mei_wdt_state_str(enum mei_wdt_state state)
>>> +{
>>> + switch (state) {
>>> + case MEI_WDT_IDLE:
>>> + return "IDLE";
>>> + case MEI_WDT_START:
>>> + return "START";
>>> + case MEI_WDT_RUNNING:
>>> + return "RUNNING";
>>> + case MEI_WDT_STOPPING:
>>> + return "STOPPING";
>>> + default:
>>> + return "unknown";
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_FS */
>>> +
>> I still don't understand why this code has to be here instead of
>> further below (at <----> mark).
> Once it follow closely after enum definition, second in the next patch the
> Ifdef is removed since we use the function in debug output and not only in debugfs.
>
>>
>>> struct mei_wdt;
>>>
>>> /**
>>> @@ -76,6 +95,8 @@ struct mei_wdt_dev {
>>> * @cldev: mei watchdog client device
>>> * @state: watchdog internal state
>>> * @timeout: watchdog current timeout
>>> + *
>>> + * @dbgfs_dir: debugfs dir entry
>>> */
>>> struct mei_wdt {
>>> struct mei_wdt_dev *mwd;
>>> @@ -83,6 +104,10 @@ struct mei_wdt {
>>> struct mei_cl_device *cldev;
>>> enum mei_wdt_state state;
>>> u16 timeout;
>>> +
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
>>> + struct dentry *dbgfs_dir;
>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_FS */
>>> };
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -387,6 +412,65 @@ static int mei_wdt_register(struct mei_wdt *wdt)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
>>> +
>>
>> <---->
>>
>>> +static ssize_t mei_dbgfs_read_state(struct file *file, char __user *ubuf,
>>> + size_t cnt, loff_t *ppos)
>>> +{
>>> + struct mei_wdt *wdt = file->private_data;
>>> + const size_t bufsz = 32;
>>> + char buf[32];
>>> + ssize_t pos = 0;
>>> +
>>> + pos += scnprintf(buf + pos, bufsz - pos, "state: %s\n",
>>> + mei_wdt_state_str(wdt->state));
>>> +
>> Seems to me that "pos = ..." would accomplish exactly the same
>> without having to pre-initialize pos. I also don't understand the use of
>> "+ pos" and "- pos" in the parameter field. pos is 0, isn't it ?
>> When would it ever be non-0 ?
>>
>> pos = scnprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "state: %s\n", mei_wdt_state_str(wdt-
>>> state));
>>
>> What am I missing here ?
> Not you are not missing anything, it's just an idiom taken from all my debugfs function with multiline output.
I don't think that is a good reason for using the more complex code here.
>>
>>> + return simple_read_from_buffer(ubuf, cnt, ppos, buf, pos);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct file_operations dbgfs_fops_state = {
>>> + .open = simple_open,
>>> + .read = mei_dbgfs_read_state,
>>> + .llseek = generic_file_llseek,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static void dbgfs_unregister(struct mei_wdt *wdt)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!wdt->dbgfs_dir)
>>> + return;
>>> + debugfs_remove_recursive(wdt->dbgfs_dir);
>>
>> debugfs_remove_recursive() checks if the parameter is NULL,
>> so it is not necessary to check if it is NULL before the call.
> Correct, I can be fixed.
>>
>>> + wdt->dbgfs_dir = NULL;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int dbgfs_register(struct mei_wdt *wdt)
>>> +{
>>> + struct dentry *dir, *f;
>>> +
>>> + dir = debugfs_create_dir(KBUILD_MODNAME, NULL);
>>> + if (!dir)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + wdt->dbgfs_dir = dir;
>>> + f = debugfs_create_file("state", S_IRUSR, dir, wdt, &dbgfs_fops_state);
>>> + if (!f)
>>> + goto err;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +err:
>>> + dbgfs_unregister(wdt);
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>
>> The error value is ignored by the caller - why bother returning an error in the first
>> place ?
> A function doesn't take responsibility on how it used.
For an exported function I would agree, but not in a static function.
Thanks,
Guenter
--
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