[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161114100447.GJ28701@mwanda>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:05:42 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@....com>
Cc: Shiva Kerdel <shiva@...ev.nl>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@....com>,
"treding@...dia.com" <treding@...dia.com>,
Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Staging: fsl-mc: include: mc: Kernel type 's16'
preferred over 'int16_t'
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 02:52:31PM +0000, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include/mc-bus.h b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include/mc-bus.h
> > > index e915574..c7cad87 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include/mc-bus.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include/mc-bus.h
> > > @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ struct msi_domain_info;
> > > */
> > > struct fsl_mc_resource_pool {
> > > enum fsl_mc_pool_type type;
> > > - int16_t max_count;
> > > - int16_t free_count;
> > > + s16 max_count;
> >
> > My understanding is that this has to be signed because the design of
> > this driver is that we keep adding devices until the the counter
> > overflows. After that there are a couple tests for
> > "if (WARN_ON(res_pool->max_count < 0)) " which prevent the driver from
> > working again.
> >
> > This all seems pretty horrible.
>
> Can you elaborate?
>
> The resource pools managed by this driver are populated by hardware objects
> discovered when the fsl-mc bus probes a DPRC/container.
>
> The number of potential objects discovered of a given type is in the hundreds,
> so a signed 16-bit number is order of magnitudes larger than anything we will
> ever encounter.
>
> Would you feel better about this if max_count was an int?
Yeah.
>
> The max_count reflects the total number of objects discovered. If that is
> exceeded we display a warning, because something is horribly wrong. Nothing
> stops working, the allocator simply refuses to add anything else to the
> free list.
I didn't look at this carefully... Anyway we can't remove devices
either. If we just had an upper bound instead of overflowing the s16
then we could still remove devices.
>
> The only reason max_count is there at all is as an internal check against
> bugs and resource leaks. If the driver is being removed and a resource
> pool is being freed, max_count must be zero...i.e. all objects should have
> been removed. If not, there is a leak somewhere. So, it's a sanity check.
>
Just use a normal upper bound with a #define instead of an magic number
hidden and then disguised as an integer overflow.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists