linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 6/9] net: netdevsim: create a mock-up PTP Hardware Clock driver

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: <ZIrEnitQEJ+P83wg@corigine.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:58:22 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>,
        Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>,
        Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>,
        Maxim Georgiev <glipus@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 6/9] net: netdevsim: create a mock-up PTP
 Hardware Clock driver

+ Dan Carpenter

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 01:17:18AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 03:11:44PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > +#define MOCK_PHC_CC_SHIFT		31
> > > +#define MOCK_PHC_CC_MULT		(1 << MOCK_PHC_CC_SHIFT)
> > 
> > Maybe BIT()?
> 
> Sorry, not everything that is 1 << something has BIT() semantics.
> This in particular is quite clearly just a multiplier factor
> expressed as a power of 2.

Yes, sorry about that.

> > > +struct mock_phc *mock_phc_create(struct device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mock_phc *phc;
> > > +	int err;
> > > +
> > > +	phc = kzalloc(sizeof(*phc), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	if (!phc) {
> > > +		err = -ENOMEM;
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	phc->info = (struct ptp_clock_info) {
> > > +		.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
> > > +		.name		= "Mock-up PTP clock",
> > > +		.max_adj	= MOCK_PHC_MAX_ADJ_PPB,
> > > +		.adjfine	= mock_phc_adjfine,
> > > +		.adjtime	= mock_phc_adjtime,
> > > +		.gettime64	= mock_phc_gettime64,
> > > +		.settime64	= mock_phc_settime64,
> > > +		.do_aux_work	= mock_phc_refresh,
> > > +	};
> > > +
> > > +	phc->cc = (struct cyclecounter) {
> > > +		.read	= mock_phc_cc_read,
> > > +		.mask	= CYCLECOUNTER_MASK(64),
> > > +		.mult	= MOCK_PHC_CC_MULT,
> > > +		.shift	= MOCK_PHC_CC_SHIFT,
> > > +	};
> > > +
> > > +	spin_lock_init(&phc->lock);
> > > +	timecounter_init(&phc->tc, &phc->cc, 0);
> > > +
> > > +	phc->clock = ptp_clock_register(&phc->info, dev);
> > > +	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(phc->clock)) {
> > > +		err = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(phc->clock);
> > > +		goto out_free_phc;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	ptp_schedule_worker(phc->clock, MOCK_PHC_REFRESH_INTERVAL);
> > > +
> > > +	return phc;
> > > +
> > > +out_free_phc:
> > > +	kfree(phc);
> > > +out:
> > > +	return ERR_PTR(err);
> > > +}
> > 
> > Smatch complains that ERR_PTR may be passed zero.
> > Looking at the IS_ERR_OR_NULL block above, this does indeed seem to be the
> > case.
> 
> The intention here had something to do with PTP being optional for the
> caller (netdevsim). Not sure whether the implementation is the best -
> and in particular whether ERR_PTR(0) is NULL or not. I guess this is
> what the smatch warning (which I haven't looked at) is saying.

Thanks. It's unclear to me if ERR_PTR(0) is actually valid or not.
By itself it does seem harmless to me. But, OTOH, it is sometimes
indicative of some other problem. Fortunately that seems not to
be the case here.

> 
> > Keeping Smatch happy is one thing - your call - but I do wonder if the
> > caller of mock_phc_create() handles the NULL case correctly.
> 
> mock_phc_create() returns a pointer to an opaque data structure -
> struct mock_phc - and the caller just carries that pointer around to the
> other API calls exported by the mock_phc module. It doesn't need to care
> whether the pointer is NULL or not, just the mock_phc module does (and
> it does handle that part well, at least assuming that the pointer is NULL).

Thanks, got it.