On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:39 AM Kent Gibson <warthog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 06:41:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:35 AM Kent Gibson <warthog...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > > + memcpy(info_v1->consumer, info_v2->consumer,
> > > + sizeof(info_v1->consumer));
> >
> > One line?
> >
>
> It can be now the line length limit has been raised - it just breaks the
> old 80 character limit.
I really wouldn't care about this if it's only for a couple of characters.
...
> > > +static int lineinfo_ensure_abi_version(struct gpio_chardev_data *cdata,
> > > + unsigned int version)
> > > +{
> >
> > > + int abiv = atomic_read(&cdata->watch_abi_version);
> > > +
> > > + if (abiv == 0) {
> >
> > > + atomic_cmpxchg(&cdata->watch_abi_version, 0, version);
> > > + abiv = atomic_read(&cdata->watch_abi_version);
> >
> > atomic_cmpxchng() returns a value.
>
> Yep, it returns the old value - which we don't care about - see below.
Then what's the point to read back?..
> > Also there are no barriers here...
> >
>
> No barriers required - the atomic_cmpxchg() is sufficient.
>
> > > + }
> > > + if (abiv != version)
> > > + return -EPERM;
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand why this is atomic.
> >
>
> The algorithm requires some level of protection and atomic is
> sufficient.
>
> > Also this seems to be racy if cdata changed in background.
> >
>
> Can you provide a case?
CPU0: CPU1:
xchg() ...
... xchg()
... read() -> OK
read() ->NOK
> The atomic_cmpxchg() ensures cdata->watch_abi_version is only set
> once - first in wins. The atomic_read() is so we can check that
> the set version matches what the caller wants.
> Note that multiple callers may request the same version - and all
> should succeed.
So, that's basically what you need when using _old_ value.
0 means you were first, right?
Anything else you simply compare and bail out if it's not the same as
what has been asked.
>
> > Shouldn't be rather
> >
> > if (atomic_cmpxchg() == 0) {
> > if (atomic_read() != version)
> > return ...;
> > }
> >
>
> My algorithm allows for multiple callers requesting the same version
> to all succeed. Yours would fail the first conditional for all but
> the first, and you haven't provided an else for that case...
>
> ... but it would probably look the same so the conditional is pointless,
> or it would reject the request - which would be wrong.
>
> > But here is still the question: why do you expect the version to be
> > changed on background? And what about barriers?
> >
>
> While it is unlikely that userspace will be attempting to use both ABI
> versions simultaneously on the same chip request, it is a possiblity and
> so needs to be protected against. And better to have the watch request
> fail than the read fail or worse - return the wrong struct version.
>
> The atomic_cmpxchg() is sufficient for this algorithm - no barriers
> required. It could also be written with a spinlock but I was trying to
> avoid locks unless they were absolutely necessary. A spinlock version
> may arguably be more readable, but it would certainly be more verbose,
> larger and slower.
>
> I'm happy to add some documentation to the function if that would help.
Yes, I guess documentation is what is eagerly needed here.
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +static int lineinfo_get(struct gpio_chardev_data *cdev, void __user *ip,
> > > + bool watch)
> > > +{
> > > + struct gpio_desc *desc;
> > > + struct gpio_v2_line_info lineinfo;
> > > +
> > > + if (copy_from_user(&lineinfo, ip, sizeof(lineinfo)))
> > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > +
> > > + if (memchr_inv(lineinfo.padding, 0, sizeof(lineinfo.padding)))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + desc = gpiochip_get_desc(cdev->gdev->chip, lineinfo.offset);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(desc))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(desc);
> > > +
> > > + if (watch) {
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_GPIO_CDEV_V1
> >
> > > + if (lineinfo_ensure_abi_version(cdev, 2))
> > > + return -EPERM;
> >
> > Can't you propagate error code from the function?
> >
>
> You mean:
> + ret = lineinfo_ensure_abi_version(cdev, 2)
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> That seems more verbose and less clear. And I'd need to conditionally
> declare a ret - as this test is compiled out if CDEV_V1 is not defined.
>
> I did flip-flop on what lineinfo_ensure_abi_version() should return -
> either a bool or an error code.
>
> If a bool then the code would include the dreaded negative conditional
> ;-(:
>
> + if (!lineinfo_is_abi_version(cdev, 2))
> + return -EPERM;
>
> so I eventually settled for the error code. But I'm on the fence on
> this one and happy to change it if you think the bool form is clearer.
>
> Cheers,
> Kent.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
