Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read32

[Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>]

On 8/26/21 12:22 PM, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 08:51:23 +0000
> David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> wrote:
> 
>> From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>
>> > Sent: 24 August 2021 08:28
>> > 
>> > _rtw_read32 function can fail in case of usb transfer failure. But
>> > previous function prototype wasn't designed to return an error to
>> > caller. It can cause a lot uninit value bugs all across the driver
>> > code, since rtw_read32() returns local stack variable to caller.
>> > 
>> > Fix it by changing the prototype of this function. Now it returns an
>> > int: 0 on success, negative error value on failure and callers
>> > should pass the pointer to storage location for register value.
>> 
>> Pretty horrid API interface.
>> Functions like readl() - which can fail just return ~0u and let
>> the caller worry about whether that causes serious grief.
>> 
>> You could make all the read functions return __u64 and return ~0ull
>> on error.
>> Testing for (value & 1ull << 63) will be reasonable even on 32bit.
>> 
> 
> I am not the best at API related questions, so can you, please,
> explain why your approach is better?
> 
> As I can see, most of the drivers in usb/ directory use smth like this
> interface for private reading funcions. We anyway creating tmp variable
> (but 64 bit _always_) and checking for mistery error, which we cannot
> pass up to callers.
> 
> Sorry, if it's _too_ dumb question, but I really can't get your
> point....
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>> ...
>> > -static u32 usb_read32(struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32 addr)
>> > +static int usb_read32(struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32 addr, u32
>> > *data) {
>> >  	u8 requesttype;
>> >  	u16 wvalue;
>> >  	u16 len;
>> > -	__le32 data;
>> > +	int res;
>> > +	__le32 tmp;
>> > +
>> > +	if (WARN_ON(unlikely(!data)))
>> > +		return -EINVAL;
>> > 
>> 
>> Kill the NULL check - it is a silly coding error.
>> An OOPS is just as easy to debug.
>> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that one single driver should kill the whole system. It's
> 100% an error, but kernel can recover from it (for example disconnect
> the driver, since it's broken).
> 
> 
> AFIAK, Greg and Linus do not like BUG_ONs in recoverable state...
> Correct me, if I am wrong
> 
Oops, I thought about BUG_ON() instead of WARN_ON(), sorry for 
confusion. My point is "we should not let the box boom".





With regards,
Pavel Skripkin