Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 May 2016 13:40:06 -0600 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] IB/hfi1: Add ioctl() interface for user commands |
| |
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:27:27PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > >I thought we agreed to get rid of this as well? It certainly does not > >belong here, and as a general rule, I don't think ioctls should be > >doing capable tests.. > > Yeah. I left it in this patch set because this just "ports" our existing > code to ioctl(). The eprom stuff is completely removed in another patch set > that I posted shortly after this. It's at:
Adding code and then removing it in a later patch is not a best practice.. Just don't add it or define ioctl numbers at all..
> >>+static inline int check_ioctl_access(unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > >>+{ > >>+ int read_cmd, write_cmd, read_ok, write_ok; > >>+ > >>+ read_cmd = _IOC_DIR(cmd) & _IOC_READ; > >>+ write_cmd = _IOC_DIR(cmd) & _IOC_WRITE; > >>+ write_ok = access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, (void __user *)arg, _IOC_SIZE(cmd)); > >>+ read_ok = access_ok(VERIFY_READ, (void __user *)arg, _IOC_SIZE(cmd)); > >>+ > >>+ if ((read_cmd && !write_ok) || (write_cmd && !read_ok)) > >>+ return -EFAULT; > > > >This seems kind of goofy, didn't Ira say this is performance senstive?
Well, calling access_ok twice when only once is typically needed is certainly not performant. Typically this check is done at every access via get_user/put_user/copy_to/from_user - why is it being hoisted like this?
> >Driver shouldn't be open coding __get_user like that, IMHO. > > Can you explain what you mean here? We should not use __get_user()?
Generally speaking, yes. Use get_user() that includes the correct access_ok. Unless there is a good reason to avoid it, the standard API should be used.
> _IOW means user is writing data to the device. So the device is reading data > from the user. Or am I missing your point?
You are right, I spaced on this when reading the above - 'write_ok' and 'write_cmd' seem like they should have been related, but really aren't. It is doing the right tests, just odd. (eg use names like write_cmd_ok, write_cmd for better clarity)
Jason
| |