[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2212211105490.570436@rhweight-WRK1>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 11:14:59 -0800 (PST)
From: matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
cc: hao.wu@...el.com, yilun.xu@...el.com, russell.h.weight@...el.com,
basheer.ahmed.muddebihal@...el.com, trix@...hat.com,
mdf@...nel.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tianfei.zhang@...el.com, corbet@....net,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
jirislaby@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se, macro@...am.me.uk,
johan@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
marpagan@...hat.com, bagasdotme@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] fpga: dfl: add basic support for DFHv1
On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 08:36:51AM -0800, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Version 1 of the Device Feature Header (DFH) definition adds
>> functionality to the DFL bus.
>>
>> A DFHv1 header may have one or more parameter blocks that
>> further describes the HW to SW. Add support to the DFL bus
>> to parse the MSI-X parameter.
>>
>> The location of a feature's register set is explicitly
>> described in DFHv1 and can be relative to the base of the DFHv1
>> or an absolute address. Parse the location and pass the information
>> to DFL driver.
>
> ...
>
>> +/**
>> + * dfh_find_param() - find data for the given parameter id
>> + * @dfl_dev: dfl device
>> + * @param: id of dfl parameter
>> + *
>> + * Return: pointer to parameter header on success, NULL otherwise.
>
> header is a bit confusing here, does it mean we give and ID and we got
> something more than just a data as summary above suggests?
Yes, the summary is not correct. It should say "find the parameter block
for the given parameter id".
>
> In such case summary and this text should clarify what exactly we get
> and layout of the data. Since this is a pointer, who is responsible of
> checking out-of-boundary accesses? For instance, if the parameters are
> variadic by length the length should be returned as well. Otherwise it
> should be specified as a constant somewhere, right?
The parameter header has the next/size field; so the caller of
dfh_find_param should perform boundary checking as part of interpreting
the parameter data. I think a function to perform this checking
and data interpretation would help here.
>
>> + */
>> +u64 *dfh_find_param(struct dfl_device *dfl_dev, int param_id)
>> +{
>> + return find_param(dfl_dev->params, dfl_dev->param_size, param_id);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dfh_find_param);
>
> ...
>
>> + finfo = kzalloc(sizeof(*finfo) + dfh_psize, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> It sounds like a candidate for struct_size() from overflow.h.
> I.o.w. check that header and come up with the best what can
> suit your case.
finfo = kzalloc(struct_size(finfo, params, dfh_psize/sizeof(u64)),
GFP_KERNEL);
Does seem better.
Thanks for the suggestion,
Matthew Gerlach
>
>> if (!finfo)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists