[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0823649-8235-40d7-813e-8a4500251219@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 22:33:54 +0530
From: Ayush Singh <ayushdevel1325@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jkridner@...gleboard.org, nm@...com,
yujie.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] greybus: gb-beagleplay: Remove use of pad bytes
>> + *
>> + * @cport: cport id
>> + * @hdr: greybus operation header
>> + * @payload: greybus message payload
>> + */
>> +struct hdlc_greybus_frame {
>> + __le16 cport;
>> + struct gb_operation_msg_hdr hdr;
>> + u8 payload[];
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>> static void hdlc_rx_greybus_frame(struct gb_beagleplay *bg, u8 *buf, u16 len)
>> {
>> - u16 cport_id;
>> - struct gb_operation_msg_hdr *hdr = (struct gb_operation_msg_hdr *)buf;
>> + struct hdlc_greybus_frame *gb_frame = (struct hdlc_greybus_frame *)buf;
>> + u16 cport_id = le16_to_cpu(gb_frame->cport);
>>
>> - memcpy(&cport_id, hdr->pad, sizeof(cport_id));
>> + /* Ensure that the greybus message is valid */
>> + if (le16_to_cpu(gb_frame->hdr.size) > len - sizeof(cport_id)) {
>> + dev_warn_ratelimited(&bg->sd->dev, "Invalid/Incomplete greybus message");
> Don't spam the kernel log for corrupted data on the line, that would be
> a mess. Use a tracepoint?
>
>> + return;
>> + }
>>
>> dev_dbg(&bg->sd->dev, "Greybus Operation %u type %X cport %u status %u received",
>> - hdr->operation_id, hdr->type, le16_to_cpu(cport_id), hdr->result);
>> + gb_frame->hdr.operation_id, gb_frame->hdr.type, cport_id, gb_frame->hdr.result);
> Better yet, put the error in the debug message?
Shouldn't corrupt data be a warning rather than debug message, since it
indicates something wrong with the transport?
>>
>> - greybus_data_rcvd(bg->gb_hd, le16_to_cpu(cport_id), buf, len);
>> + greybus_data_rcvd(bg->gb_hd, cport_id, &buf[sizeof(cport_id)],
> Fun with pointer math. This feels really fragile, why not just point to
> the field instead?
It seems that taking address of members of packed structures is not
valid. I get the `address-of-packed-member` warnings. Is it fine to
ignore those in kernel?
>> }
>>
>> static void hdlc_rx_dbg_frame(const struct gb_beagleplay *bg, const char *buf, u16 len)
>> @@ -339,7 +357,7 @@ static struct serdev_device_ops gb_beagleplay_ops = {
>> static int gb_message_send(struct gb_host_device *hd, u16 cport, struct gb_message *msg, gfp_t mask)
>> {
>> struct gb_beagleplay *bg = dev_get_drvdata(&hd->dev);
>> - struct hdlc_payload payloads[2];
>> + struct hdlc_payload payloads[3];
> why 3?
>
> It's ok to put this on the stack?
Well, the HDLC payload is just to store the length of the payload along
with a pointer to its data. (kind of emulate a fat pointer). The reason
for doing it this way is to avoid having to create a temp buffer for
each message when sending data over UART (which was done in the initial
version of the driver).
Ayush Singh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists