Em Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:59:04 +0100
Hans Verkuil <hverk...@xs4all.nl> escreveu:
> On 11/02/2013 10:53 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On 11/02/2013 10:15 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:25:19 +0100
> >> Hans Verkuil <hverk...@xs4all.nl> escreveu:
> >>
> >>> Hi Mauro,
> >>>
> >>> I'll review this series more carefully on Monday,
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >>> but for now I want to make
> >>> a suggestion for the array checks:
> >>>
> >>> On 11/02/2013 02:31 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> Dynamic static allocation is evil, as Kernel stack is too low, and
> >>>> compilation complains about it on some archs:
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c:50:1: warning: 'e4000_wr_regs' uses
> >>>> dynamic stack allocation [enabled by default]
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c:83:1: warning: 'e4000_rd_regs' uses
> >>>> dynamic stack allocation [enabled by default]
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/fc2580.c:66:1: warning:
> >>>> 'fc2580_wr_regs.constprop.1' uses dynamic stack allocation [enabled by
> >>>> default]
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/fc2580.c:98:1: warning:
> >>>> 'fc2580_rd_regs.constprop.0' uses dynamic stack allocation [enabled by
> >>>> default]
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/tda18212.c:57:1: warning: 'tda18212_wr_regs' uses
> >>>> dynamic stack allocation [enabled by default]
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/tda18212.c:90:1: warning:
> >>>> 'tda18212_rd_regs.constprop.0' uses dynamic stack allocation [enabled by
> >>>> default]
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/tda18218.c:60:1: warning: 'tda18218_wr_regs' uses
> >>>> dynamic stack allocation [enabled by default]
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/tda18218.c:92:1: warning:
> >>>> 'tda18218_rd_regs.constprop.0' uses dynamic stack allocation [enabled by
> >>>> default]
> >>>>
> >>>> Instead, let's enforce a limit for the buffer. Considering that I2C
> >>>> transfers are generally limited, and that devices used on USB has a
> >>>> max data length of 80, it seem safe to use 80 as the hard limit for all
> >>>> those devices. On most cases, the limit is a way lower than that, but
> >>>> 80 is small enough to not affect the Kernel stack, and it is a no brain
> >>>> limit, as using smaller ones would require to either carefully each
> >>>> driver or to take a look on each datasheet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.che...@samsung.com>
> >>>> Cc: Antti Palosaari <cr...@iki.fi>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/fc2580.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/tda18212.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> >>>> drivers/media/tuners/tda18218.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> >>>> 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c b/drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c
> >>>> index ad9309da4a91..235e90251609 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c
> >>>> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
> >>>> static int e4000_wr_regs(struct e4000_priv *priv, u8 reg, u8 *val, int
> >>>> len)
> >>>> {
> >>>> int ret;
> >>>> - u8 buf[1 + len];
> >>>> + u8 buf[80];
> >>>> struct i2c_msg msg[1] = {
> >>>> {
> >>>> .addr = priv->cfg->i2c_addr,
> >>>> @@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ static int e4000_wr_regs(struct e4000_priv *priv, u8
> >>>> reg, u8 *val, int len)
> >>>> }
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> + if (1 + len > sizeof(buf)) {
> >>>> + dev_warn(&priv->i2c->dev,
> >>>> + "%s: i2c wr reg=%04x: len=%d is too big!\n",
> >>>> + KBUILD_MODNAME, reg, len);
> >>>> + return -EREMOTEIO;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> I think this can be greatly simplified to:
> >>>
> >>> if (WARN_ON(len + 1 > sizeof(buf))
> >>> return -EREMOTEIO;
> >>>
> >>> This should really never happen, and it is a clear driver bug if it does.
> >>> WARN_ON
> >>> does the job IMHO.
> >>
> >> Works for me. I'll wait for more comments, and go for it on v3.
> >>
> >>> I also don't like the EREMOTEIO error: it has nothing to do with
> >>> an I/O problem. Wouldn't EMSGSIZE be much better here?
> >>
> >>
> >> EMSGSIZE is not used yet at drivers/media. So, it is probably not the
> >> right error code.
> >>
> >> I remember that there's an error code for that on I2C (EOPNOTSUPP?).
> >>
> >> In any case, I don't think we should use an unusual error code here.
> >> In theory, this error should never happen, but we don't want to break
> >> userspace because of it. That's why I opted to use EREMOTEIO: this is
> >> the error code that most of those drivers return when something gets
> >> wrong during I2C transfers.
> >
> > The problem I have is that EREMOTEIO is used when the i2c transfer fails,
> > i.e. there is some sort of a hardware or communication problem.
> >
> > That's not the case here, it's an argument error. So EINVAL would actually
> > be better, but that's perhaps overused which is why I suggested EMSGSIZE.
> > I personally don't think EIO or EREMOTEIO should be used for something that
> > is not hardware related. I'm sure there are some gray areas, but this
> > particular situation is clearly not hardware-related.
> >
> > So if EMSGSIZE won't work for you, then I prefer EINVAL over EREMOTEIO.
> > ENOMEM is also an option (you are after all 'out of buffer memory').
> > A bit more exotic, but still sort of in the area, is EPROTO.
>
> After thinking about it a little bit more I would just return -EINVAL. It's
> a wrong argument, it's something that shouldn't happen at all, and you get a
> big fat stack trace anyway due to the WARN_ON, so EINVAL makes perfect sense.
Works for me.
Regards,
Mauro
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
--
Cheers,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
