linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: Allow user to customise maximum number of GPIOs

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: <CACRpkdbhbwBe=jU5prifXCYUXPqULhst0se3ZRH+sWOh9XeoLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 13:13:30 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" 
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Allow user to customise maximum number of GPIOs

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:48 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:

> As I understood, the problem that Christophe ran into is that the
> dynamic registration of additional gpio chips is broken because
> it unregisters the chip if the number space is exhausted:
>
>                 base = gpiochip_find_base(gc->ngpio);
>                 if (base < 0) {
>                         ret = base;
>                         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
>                         goto err_free_label;
>                 }
>
> From the git history, it looks like this error was never handled gracefully
> even if the intention was to keep going without a number assignment,
> so there are probably other bugs one runs into after changing this.

Hm that should be possible to get rid of altogether? I suppose it is only
there to satisfy

static inline bool gpio_is_valid(int number)
{
        return number >= 0 && number < ARCH_NR_GPIOS;
}

?

If using GPIO descriptors, any descriptor != NULL is valid,
this one is just used with legacy GPIOs. Maybe we should just
delete gpio_is_valid() everywhere and then drop the cap?

I think there may be systems and users that still depend on GPIO base
numbers being assigned from ARCH_NR_GPIOS and
downwards (userspace GPIO numbers in sysfs will also change...)
otherwise we could assign from 0 and up.

Right now the safest would be:
Assign from 512 and downwards until we hit 0 then assign
from something high, like U32_MAX and downward.

That requires dropping gpio_is_valid() everywhere.

If we wanna be bold, just delete gpio_is_valid() and assign
bases from 0 and see what happens. But I think that will
lead to regressions.

Yours,
Linus Walleij