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  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:   Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:05:10 +0200
From:   Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     benjamin.gaignard@...com, kernel@...inux.com,
        patrice.chotard@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hans.verkuil@...co.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [media] cec: Handle RC capability more elegantly

On 04/04/2017 05:36 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:19:39PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2017, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2017 04:43 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> If a user specifies the use of RC as a capability, they should
>>>> really be enabling RC Core code.  If they do not we WARN() them
>>>> of this and disable the capability for them.
>>>>
>>>> Once we know RC Core code has not been enabled, we can update
>>>> the user's capabilities and use them as a term of reference for
>>>> other RC-only calls.  This is preferable to having ugly #ifery
>>>> scattered throughout C code.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the functions are actually safe to call, since they
>>>> sensibly check for a NULL RC pointer before they attempt to
>>>> deference it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c | 19 +++++++------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
>>>> index cfe414a..51be8d6 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/cec/cec-core.c
>>>> @@ -208,9 +208,13 @@ struct cec_adapter *cec_allocate_adapter(const struct cec_adap_ops *ops,
>>>>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>>  	if (WARN_ON(!available_las || available_las > CEC_MAX_LOG_ADDRS))
>>>>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>> +	if (WARN_ON(caps & CEC_CAP_RC && !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)))
>>>> +		caps &= ~CEC_CAP_RC;
>>>
>>> Don't use WARN_ON, this is not an error of any kind.
>>
>> Right, this is not an error.
>>
>> That's why we are warning the user instead of bombing out.
> 
> Please print warning using pr_warn() or dev_warn().  Using WARN_ON()
> because something is not configured is _really_ not nice behaviour.
> Consider how useful a stack trace is to the user for this situation -
> it's completely meaningless.
> 
> A message that prompts the user to enable RC_CORE would make more sense,
> and be much more informative to the user.  Maybe something like this:
> 
> +	if (caps & CEC_CAP_RC && !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_RC_CORE)) {
> +		pr_warn("CEC: driver %pf requests RC, please enable CONFIG_RC_CORE\n",
> +			__builtin_return_address(0));
> +		caps &= ~CEC_CAP_RC;
> +	}
> 
> It could be much more informative by using dev_warn() if we had the
> 'struct device' passed in to this function, and then we wouldn't need
> to use __builtin_return_address().
> 

I don't want to see a message logged because of this. In the current design it
is perfectly valid to compile without RC_CORE.

I think eventually this should be redesigned a bit (a separate CEC config option
that enables or disables RC support), but for now I prefer to leave this as-is
until I have a bit more experience with this.

After the CEC notifier work is in I will take another look at this.

Regards,

	Hans

Powered by blists - more mailing lists