Re: [PATCH v11 15/22] vfio: Introduce vfio_set_irqs_validate_and_prepare()

[Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:07:58 +1100
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
> On 09/11/16 07:22, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
> > On 11/8/2016 2:16 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:  
> >> On 05/11/16 08:10, Kirti Wankhede wrote:  
> >>> Vendor driver using mediated device framework would use same mechnism to
> >>> validate and prepare IRQs. Introducing this function to reduce code
> >>> replication in multiple drivers.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Neo Jia <cjia@nvidia.com>
> >>> Change-Id: Ie201f269dda0713ca18a07dc4852500bd8b48309
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/vfio/vfio.c  | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  include/linux/vfio.h |  4 ++++
> >>>  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>> index 9a03be0942a1..ed2361e4b904 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> >>> @@ -1858,6 +1858,54 @@ int vfio_info_add_capability(struct vfio_info_cap *caps, int cap_type_id,
> >>>  }
> >>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(vfio_info_add_capability);
> >>>  
> >>> +int vfio_set_irqs_validate_and_prepare(struct vfio_irq_set *hdr, int num_irqs,
> >>> +				       int max_irq_type, size_t *data_size)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	unsigned long minsz;
> >>> +	size_t size;
> >>> +
> >>> +	minsz = offsetofend(struct vfio_irq_set, count);
> >>> +
> >>> +	if ((hdr->argsz < minsz) || (hdr->index >= max_irq_type) ||
> >>> +	    (hdr->count >= (U32_MAX - hdr->start)) ||
> >>> +	    (hdr->flags & ~(VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_TYPE_MASK |
> >>> +				VFIO_IRQ_SET_ACTION_TYPE_MASK)))
> >>> +		return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (data_size)  
> >>
> >> Pointless check, the callers will pass non null pointer with value
> >> initialized to 0 anyway.
> >>  
> > 
> > Not always, When VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_NONE flag is set, caller can pass
> > data_size = NULL.  
> 
> 
> Today data_size is not NULL in all cases and the way it is used now (ioctl
> VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS) gives me an idea that this is not going to change.
> 
> >   
> >>  
> >>> +		*data_size = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (hdr->start >= num_irqs || hdr->start + hdr->count > num_irqs)
> >>> +		return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> +	switch (hdr->flags & VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_TYPE_MASK) {
> >>> +	case VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_NONE:
> >>> +		size = 0;
> >>> +		break;
> >>> +	case VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_BOOL:
> >>> +		size = sizeof(uint8_t);
> >>> +		break;
> >>> +	case VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_EVENTFD:
> >>> +		size = sizeof(int32_t);
> >>> +		break;
> >>> +	default:
> >>> +		return -EINVAL;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (size) {  
> >>
> >> The whole branch would even work for size == 0.
> >>  
> > 
> > In that case below check (!data_size) might result in error if data_size
> > == NULL, whereas its not error case when size == 0, i.e.
> > VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_NONE flag set.
> >   
> >>> +		if (hdr->argsz - minsz < hdr->count * size)
> >>> +			return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> +		if (!data_size)
> >>> +			return -EINVAL;  
> >>
> >> Redundant check as well.
> >>  
> > 
> > This is not redundant. If you see above check, it sets its init value to
> > 0 but doesn't fail.
> >   
> >>> +
> >>> +		*data_size = hdr->count * size;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	return 0;
> >>> +}  
> >>
> >> It does not really prepare anything as the name suggests. It looks like
> >> this is 2 different helpers actually:
> >>
> >> int vfio_set_irqs_validate()
> >> and
> >> size_t vfio_set_irqs_hdr_to_data_size()
> >>  
> > 
> > Later one is the prepare.  
> 
> 
> Does not like it prepares anything, just a simple converter.
> 
> 
> >> And it would make it easier to review/bisect if 16/22 and 17/22 were merged
> >> into this one as this patch alone adds new code which it does not use and
> >> all 3 patches are fairly small.
> >>  
> > 
> > I do had all 3 patch merged in one in earlier version of patchset. This
> > is split as per Alex's suggestion.  
> 
> I got this from another mail from Alex. Which I find strange but whatever,
> this is his realm anyway :)

Maybe you haven't noticed, but your patch series are often difficult to
deal with, they almost always split across functional areas and
maintainers.  Splitting out code to common functions and _then_
updating the callers to make use of it is a common way to deal with
that.  We're in the same functional area here, but it's still
good practice.  Thanks,

Alex