linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device

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: <20180911120350.qtacdf2otwzuywv2@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:03:50 +0200
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" 
        <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] Add udmabuf misc device

> > >> +	if (WARN_ON(vmf->pgoff >= ubuf->pagecount))
> > >> +		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > > 
> > > Just curious, when do you expect this to happen ?
> > 
> > It should not.  If it actually happens it would be a bug somewhere,
> > thats why the WARN_ON.
> 
> But you seem to consider that this condition that should never happen still 
> has a high enough chance of happening that it's worth a WARN_ON(). I was 
> wondering why this one in particular, and not other conditions that also can't 
> happen and are not checked through the code. 

Added it while writing the code, to get any coding mistake I make
flagged right away instead of things exploding later on.

I can drop it.

> > >> +	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct udmabuf), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > 
> > > sizeof(*ubuf)
> > 
> > Why?  Should not make a difference ...
> 
> Because the day we replace
> 
> 	struct udmabuf *ubuf;
> 
> with
> 
> 	struct udmabuf_ext *ubuf;
> 
> and forget to change the next line, we'll introduce a bug. That's why 
> sizeof(variable) is preferred over sizeof(type). Another reason is that I can 
> easily see that
> 
> 	ubuf = kzalloc(sizeof(*ubuf), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> is correct, while using sizeof(type) requires me to go and look up the 
> declaration of the variable.

So it simplifies review, ok, will change it.

BTW: Maybe the kernel should pick up a neat trick from glib:

g_new0() is a macro which takes the type instead of the size as first
argument, and it casts the return value to that type.  So the compiler
will throw warnings in case of a mismatch.  That'll work better than
depending purely on the coder being careful and review catching the
remaining issues.

cheers,
  Gerd