| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANLsYkx69cZotLUrt170XYiYxpkTGKBNC8FUioBD=OSnDYm46Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:43:22 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
linux-remoteproc <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] remoteproc: Split firmware name allocation from rproc_alloc()
Hi guys,
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 18:54, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon 13 Apr 13:56 PDT 2020, Alex Elder wrote:
>
> > On 4/13/20 2:33 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > Make the firmware name allocation a function on its own in order to
> > > introduce more flexibility to function rproc_alloc().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
> >
> > I didn't look at the larger context (MCU series); I'm only looking
> > at this (and the others in this series) in isolation. I like
> > that you're encapsulating this stuff into functions but doing so
> > doesn't really add any flexibility.
> >
> > Two small suggestions for you to consider but they're truly
> > more about style so it's entirely up to you. Outside of that
> > this looks straightforward to me, and the result of the series
> > is an improvement.
> >
> > I'll let you comment on my suggestions before offering my
> > "reviewed-by" indication.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++------------
> > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > index 80056513ae71..4dee63f319ba 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > @@ -1979,6 +1979,33 @@ static const struct device_type rproc_type = {
> > > .release = rproc_type_release,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static int rproc_alloc_firmware(struct rproc *rproc,
> > > + const char *name, const char *firmware)
> > > +{
> > > + char *p, *template = "rproc-%s-fw";
> > > + int name_len;
> >
> > Not a big deal (and maybe it's not consistent with other nearby
> > style) but template and name_len could be defined inside the
> > "if (!firmware)" block.
> >
>
> I prefer variables declared in the beginning of the function, so I'm
> happy with this.
>
> > > + if (!firmware) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the caller didn't pass in a firmware name then
> > > + * construct a default name.
> > > + */
> > > + name_len = strlen(name) + strlen(template) - 2 + 1;
> > > + p = kmalloc(name_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> >
> > I don't know if it would be an improvement, but you could
> > check for a null p value below for both cases. I.e.:
> >
> > if (p)
> > snprintf(p, ...);
> >
>
> Moving the common NULL check and return out seems nice, but given that
> we then have to have this positive conditional I think the end result is
> more complex.
>
> That said, if we're not just doing a verbatim copy from rproc_alloc() I
> think we should make this function:
>
> if (!firmware)
> p = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "rproc-%s-fw", name);
> else
> p = kstrdup_const(firmware, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> rproc->firmware = p;
>
> return p ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
At this time I was going for a pure re-arrangement of the code and
avoiding further improvement. This is simple enough that it can be
rolled-in the next revision.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> > (more below)
> >
> > > + if (!p)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > + snprintf(p, name_len, template, name);
> > > + } else {
> > > + p = kstrdup(firmware, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!p)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > if (!p)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > > + rproc->firmware = p;
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * rproc_alloc() - allocate a remote processor handle
> > > * @dev: the underlying device
> > > @@ -2007,42 +2034,21 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
> > > const char *firmware, int len)
> > > {
> > > struct rproc *rproc;
> > > - char *p, *template = "rproc-%s-fw";
> > > - int name_len;
> > >
> > > if (!dev || !name || !ops)
> > > return NULL;
> > >
> > > - if (!firmware) {
> > > - /*
> > > - * If the caller didn't pass in a firmware name then
> > > - * construct a default name.
> > > - */
> > > - name_len = strlen(name) + strlen(template) - 2 + 1;
> > > - p = kmalloc(name_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > - if (!p)
> > > - return NULL;
> > > - snprintf(p, name_len, template, name);
> > > - } else {
> > > - p = kstrdup(firmware, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > - if (!p)
> > > - return NULL;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > rproc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rproc) + len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > - if (!rproc) {
> > > - kfree(p);
> > > + if (!rproc)
> > > return NULL;
> > > - }
> > > +
> > > + if (rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware))
> > > + goto free_rproc;
> > >
> > > rproc->ops = kmemdup(ops, sizeof(*ops), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > - if (!rproc->ops) {
> > > - kfree(p);
> > > - kfree(rproc);
> > > - return NULL;
> > > - }
> > > + if (!rproc->ops)
> > > + goto free_firmware;
> > >
> > > - rproc->firmware = p;
> > > rproc->name = name;
> > > rproc->priv = &rproc[1];
> > > rproc->auto_boot = true;
> > > @@ -2091,6 +2097,12 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
> > > rproc->state = RPROC_OFFLINE;
> > >
> > > return rproc;
> > > +
> > > +free_firmware:
> > > + kfree(rproc->firmware);
> > > +free_rproc:
> > > + kfree(rproc);
> > > + return NULL;
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_alloc);
> > >
> > >
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists