From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
To: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
Cc: "Gustavo Padovan" <gustavo@padovan.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
"Daniel Stone" <daniels@collabora.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
"Riley Andrews" <riandrews@android.com>,
"ML dri-devel" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Arve Hjønnevåg" <arve@android.com>,
"John Harrison" <John.C.Harrison@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/android: refactor SYNC_IOC_FILE_INFO
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:25:18 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160227152518.GB20887@joana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACvgo51nnAn6GyvF7c2qY8-iTKDoFgArcayahwYCQNvJqCPq5g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Emil,
2016-02-27 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> On 26 February 2016 at 21:00, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org> wrote:
> > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
> >
> > Change SYNC_IOC_FILE_INFO behaviour to avoid future API breaks and
> > optimize buffer allocation. In the new approach the ioctl needs to be called
> > twice to retrieve the array of fence_infos pointed by info->sync_fence_info.
> >
> I might have misunderstood things but I no one says you "need" to call
> it twice - you can just request a "random" amount of fences_info. Upon
> return (if num_fences was non zero) it will report how many fence_info
> were retrieved.
Right, I don't see any problem doing it in one request, I just didn't
think about that in the new proposal. I'll update the code and commit
message accordinly.
>
> > The first call should pass num_fences = 0, the kernel will then fill
> > info->num_fences. Userspace receives back the number of fences and
> > allocates a buffer size num_fences * sizeof(struct sync_fence_info) on
> > info->sync_fence_info.
> >
> > It then call the ioctl again passing num_fences received in info->num_fences.
> "calls"
>
> > The kernel checks if info->num_fences > 0 and if yes it fill
> > info->sync_fence_info with an array containing all fence_infos.
> >
> The above sentence sounds a bit strange. I believe you meant to say
> something like "Then the kernel fills the fence_infos array with data.
> One should read back the actual number from info->num_fences." ?
>
> > info->len now represents the length of the buffer sync_fence_info points
> > to.
> Now that I think about it, I'm wondering if there'll be a case where
> len != info->num_fences * sizeof(struct sync_file_info). If that's not
> possible one could just drop len and nicely simplify things.
>
> > Also, info->sync_fence_info was converted to __u64 pointer.
> >
> ... pointer to prevent 32bit compatibility issues.
>
> > An example userspace code would be:
> >
> > struct sync_file_info *info;
> > int err, size, num_fences;
> >
> > info = malloc(sizeof(*info));
> >
> > memset(info, 0, sizeof(*info));
> >
> > err = ioctl(fd, SYNC_IOC_FILE_INFO, info);
> > num_fences = info->num_fences;
> >
> > if (num_fences) {
> > memset(info, 0, sizeof(*info));
> > size = sizeof(struct sync_fence_info) * num_fences;
> > info->len = size;
> > info->num_fences = num_fences;
> > info->sync_fence_info = (uint64_t) calloc(num_fences,
> > sizeof(struct sync_fence_info));
> >
> > err = ioctl(fd, SYNC_IOC_FILE_INFO, info);
> > }
> >
> > v2: fix fence_info memory leak
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/android/sync.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > drivers/staging/android/uapi/sync.h | 9 +++----
> > 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/sync.c b/drivers/staging/android/sync.c
> > index dc5f382..2379f23 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/android/sync.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/sync.c
> > @@ -502,21 +502,22 @@ static int sync_fill_fence_info(struct fence *fence, void *data, int size)
> > static long sync_file_ioctl_fence_info(struct sync_file *sync_file,
> > unsigned long arg)
> > {
> > - struct sync_file_info *info;
> > + struct sync_file_info in, *info;
> > + struct sync_fence_info *fence_info = NULL;
> > __u32 size;
> > __u32 len = 0;
> > int ret, i;
> >
> > - if (copy_from_user(&size, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(size)))
> > + if (copy_from_user(&in, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(*info)))
> s/*info/in/
>
> > return -EFAULT;
> >
> > - if (size < sizeof(struct sync_file_info))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > + if (in.status || strcmp(in.name, "\0"))
> Afaict these two are outputs, so we should be checking them ?
Hmm. Maybe not.
>
> > + return -EFAULT;
> >
> As originally, input validation should return -EINVAL on error.
>
>
> > - if (size > 4096)
> > - size = 4096;
> > + if (in.num_fences && !in.sync_fence_info)
> > + return -EFAULT;
> >
> Ditto.
>
> > - info = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!info)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > @@ -525,14 +526,33 @@ static long sync_file_ioctl_fence_info(struct sync_file *sync_file,
> > if (info->status >= 0)
> > info->status = !info->status;
> >
> > - info->num_fences = sync_file->num_fences;
> > + /*
> > + * Passing num_fences = 0 means that userspace want to know how
> > + * many fences are in the sync_file to be able to allocate a buffer to
> > + * fit all sync_fence_infos and call the ioctl again with the buffer
> > + * assigned to info->sync_fence_info. The second call pass the
> > + * num_fences value received in the first call.
> > + */
> > + if (!in.num_fences)
> > + goto no_fences;
> > +
> We should clamp in.num_fences to min2(in.num_fences,
> sync_file->num_fences) and use it over sync_file->num_fences though
> the rest of the function. Or just bail out when the two are not the
> same.
>
> Depends on what the planned semantics are. Fwiw I'm leaning towards the former.
If num_fences received is smaller than the actual num_fences I think we
should fails, otherwise we should just fill the buffer with all
fence_infos...
>
> > + size = sync_file->num_fences * sizeof(*fence_info);
> > + if (in.len != size) {
> > + ret = -EFAULT;
> EINVAL or just drop len from the struct.
...so this check now would be in.len < size.
>
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> >
> > - len = sizeof(struct sync_file_info);
> > + fence_info = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!fence_info) {
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < sync_file->num_fences; ++i) {
> > struct fence *fence = sync_file->cbs[i].fence;
> >
> > - ret = sync_fill_fence_info(fence, (u8 *)info + len, size - len);
> > + ret = sync_fill_fence_info(fence, (u8 *)fence_info + len,
> A few comments about sync_fill_fence_info()
> - Internal function so make the second argument of the correct type -
> struct sync_fence_info *
> - Drop the third argument size, as that one is always sizeof(sync_fence_info).
> - Remove the size checking in the same function and make its return type void
>
> Then one can simplify this loop even further :-)
Sounds good to me.
>
> > + size - len);
> >
> > if (ret < 0)
> > goto out;
> > @@ -540,14 +560,24 @@ static long sync_file_ioctl_fence_info(struct sync_file *sync_file,
> > len += ret;
> > }
> >
> > + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)in.sync_fence_info, fence_info, size)) {
> > + ret = -EFAULT;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > info->len = len;
> > + info->sync_fence_info = (__u64) in.sync_fence_info;
> Why the cast ?
>
> > +
> > +no_fences:
> > + info->num_fences = sync_file->num_fences;
> >
> > - if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, info, len))
> > + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, info, sizeof(*info)))
> Don't know if we should be returning (copying) any other information
> but info->num_fences in case of "no_fences". In case it's not clear -
> I'm thinking about the data we already have in in info->name and
> info->status.
Userspace might want to know all info about the sync_file but
sync_fence_info.
Gustavo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-27 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-26 18:31 [PATCH v4 1/5] staging/android: add num_fences field to struct sync_file_info Gustavo Padovan
2016-02-26 18:31 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] staging/android: rename SYNC_IOC_FENCE_INFO Gustavo Padovan
2016-02-26 18:31 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] staging/android: remove redundant comments on sync_merge_data Gustavo Padovan
2016-02-29 8:31 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-02-26 18:31 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] staging/android: refactor SYNC_IOC_FILE_INFO Gustavo Padovan
2016-02-26 21:00 ` [PATCH] " Gustavo Padovan
2016-02-27 2:18 ` Emil Velikov
2016-02-27 15:25 ` Gustavo Padovan [this message]
2016-02-29 8:34 ` Emil Velikov
2016-02-29 8:26 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-02-29 22:08 ` Gustavo Padovan
2016-03-01 8:35 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-03-01 11:55 ` Gustavo Padovan
2016-03-01 6:55 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] " Dan Carpenter
2016-02-26 18:31 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] staging/android: add flags member to sync ioctl structs Gustavo Padovan
2016-02-27 2:20 ` Emil Velikov
2016-02-27 15:27 ` Gustavo Padovan
2016-02-29 7:59 ` Emil Velikov
2016-02-29 8:30 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-03-01 6:36 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] staging/android: add num_fences field to struct sync_file_info Dan Carpenter
2016-03-01 11:52 ` Gustavo Padovan
2016-03-02 19:52 [PATCH v6 5/6] staging/android: refactor SYNC_IOC_FILE_INFO Gustavo Padovan
2016-03-03 14:34 ` [PATCH] " Gustavo Padovan
2016-03-03 14:59 ` Maarten Lankhorst
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160227152518.GB20887@joana \
--to=gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk \
--cc=John.C.Harrison@intel.com \
--cc=arve@android.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniels@collabora.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=emil.l.velikov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gustavo@padovan.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riandrews@android.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).