lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] pci: dynids.use_driver_data considered harmful
Date
On Aug 17, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:22:59 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15:01PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 15, 2008 11:55 am Jean Delvare wrote:
>>>> In fact we can do even better than that. We could accept from
>>>> user-space only driver_data values which at least one device ID
>>>> entry in
>>>> the driver already uses. That should be fairly easy to implement,
>>>> and
>>>> would offer a level of safety an order of magnitude above what we
>>>> have
>>>> at the moment... And it works both ways: if 0 is not a valid data
>>>> for
>>>> some driver, that would force the user to provide a non-zero (and
>>>> valid) data value. And it guarantees that the user can't ask for
>>>> something the driver doesn't expect, so drivers don't even need
>>>> extra
>>>> checks. And no need for a use_driver_data flag either.
>>>
>>> Meaning a driver audit of the usage? Yeah that would be great.

Thanks Jean for doing this. Sometimes things move quickly after a long
stall. I thought about proposing a similar patch and therefore have to
say Ack.

>>>> The only drawback is that it prevents the user from passing a "new"
>>>> data value even if it would be valid. But honestly, I don't expect
>>>> that
>>>> case to happen frequently... if ever at all. So I'd say the benefits
>>>> totally outweight the drawback.

There are a few drivers that could benefit, mainly ones that I
identified as using flags. For example, the radeon driver uses
different fields of the data to specify crt controller, video output
device, etc. I'm fine with deferring a flag for such drivers until
someone audits a driver and wants the support.

>>>>
>>>> If the interested people agree with the idea, I'll look into
>>>> implementing it.
>>>
>>> Well the audit would show if user supplied "new" values are needed;
>>> otherwise
>>> the approach sounds good to me.
>>
>> That sounds reasonable, and should work properly.
>>
>> No objection from me.

so, if anyone asks,

Concept-Acked-By: Milton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>

milton



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-19 20:03    [W:0.070 / U:6.032 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site