Hello Greg,
On (08/21/18 15:57), Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > I think that sysfs input is always properly NULL-terminated. It may or
> > may not contain \n, but \0 is expected to be there. Am I wrong?
>
> sysfs data is always null terminated.
>
> What exactly are you trying to do here? If a user sends you crappy data
> in a sysfs file (like leading or trailing whitespace), well, you can
> always just error out, no problem.
So what we are thinking about is sort of clean up / unification of the
way ->store() callbacks handle sysfs input. They all have to do the
same things for "corner case" handling and many of them forget to handle
some specific cases; or have to come up with extra code; or are not aware
of the existing API; etc.
For instance, let's look at 325c4b3b81027068 [well, a small part of]
---
@@ -245,7 +239,7 @@ static ssize_t pm_qos_resume_latency_store(struct device
*dev,
if (value == 0)
value = PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINT;
- } else if (!strcmp(buf, "n/a") || !strcmp(buf, "n/a\n")) {
+ } else if (sysfs_streq(buf, "n/a")) {
value = 0;
} else {
return -EINVAL;
@@ -285,9 +279,9 @@ static ssize_t pm_qos_latency_tolerance_store(struct device
*dev,
if (value < 0)
return -EINVAL;
} else {
- if (!strcmp(buf, "auto") || !strcmp(buf, "auto\n"))
+ if (sysfs_streq(buf, "auto"))
value = PM_QOS_LATENCY_TOLERANCE_NO_CONSTRAINT;
- else if (!strcmp(buf, "any") || !strcmp(buf, "any\n"))
+ else if (sysfs_streq(buf, "any"))
value = PM_QOS_LATENCY_ANY;
else
return -EINVAL;
@@ -342,20 +336,12 @@ static ssize_t
wake_store(struct device * dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
const char * buf, size_t n)
{
- char *cp;
- int len = n;
-
if (!device_can_wakeup(dev))
return -EINVAL;
- cp = memchr(buf, '\n', n);
- if (cp)
- len = cp - buf;
- if (len == sizeof _enabled - 1
- && strncmp(buf, _enabled, sizeof _enabled - 1) == 0)
+ if (sysfs_streq(buf, _enabled))
device_set_wakeup_enable(dev, 1);
- else if (len == sizeof _disabled - 1
- && strncmp(buf, _disabled, sizeof _disabled - 1) == 0)
+ else if (sysfs_streq(buf, _disabled))
device_set_wakeup_enable(dev, 0);
else
return -EINVAL;
---
There was quite a bit of code. But these things still can and do happen;
Andy tweaked the existing code only.
So what we are looking at is a way which would let us to make that part
of drivers to be simpler and less fragile, perhaps.
> Please always post a user of your new api when you make stuff like this
> otherwise we do not know how it is used, or even why you are adding it.
Sure, I agree. There is no API proposal yet; so I gave a simple example
in the commit message and didn't bother to convert any of the existing
users.
I'm not even sure yet if we want to have a new API. The sort of a
root cause [it seems so] here is that sysfs input data has irregular
format. That's why we have irregular handling of
Either in a form of
if (!strcmp(buf, "auto") || !strcmp(buf, "auto\n"))
...
or in a form of
if (sz > 0 && value[sz - 1] == '\n')
value[sz - 1] = 0x00;
if (!strcmp(value, "auto"))
and so on.
So may be, instead of new API which was meant to help make sysfs data
look uniform, we can do tweaks to sysfs and pass to ->store() callbacks
data which already has no trailing newline and whitespaces. IOW, make it
uniform within sysfs. Then we can remove a bunch of code from the existing
drivers and make it easier for future drivers.
So sysfs could do strim-ing, etc. and ->store() would always receive data
which can be directly used as strcmp/strcpy/etc input. Because this is what
people want to do after all; but they learn at some point that they can't
and there are newline symbols, etc. to take care of.
What do you think? A new API is probably safer option here; but then,
again, people can forget to use it, or be unaware of it.
-ss
