Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:18:40 +0100 | From | Stuart Hodgson <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] net: ethtool: Add capability to retrieve plug-in module EEPROM |
| |
On 12/04/12 00:42, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 19:16 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 17:50 +0100, Stuart Hodgson wrote: >>> On 02/04/12 18:52, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> [...] >>>>> --- a/net/core/ethtool.c >>>>> +++ b/net/core/ethtool.c >> [...] >>>>> + if (eeprom.offset + eeprom.len> modinfo.eeprom_len) >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + >>>>> + data = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_USER); >>>>> + if (!data) >>>>> + return -ENOMEM; >>>> >>>> What if some device has a larger EEPROM? Surely this length should be >>>> eeprom.len. >>>> >>> >>> Do you mean what if the eeprom length in te device is larger than >>> PAGE_SIZE? >> >> Yes. >> >>> If so then it should really use modinfo.eeprom_len since >>> this the size of the data. eeprom.len could be arbitary. >> >> No, eeprom.len is the size of the data and we've already validated it at >> this point. > > Maybe we should start by refactoring ethtool_get_eeprom() so we can > reuse most of its code in ethtool_get_module_eeprom(), rather than > having to worry about what the maximum size of a module EEPROM might be > and whether we need a loop: > > Subject: ethtool: Split ethtool_get_eeprom() to allow for additional EEPROM accessors > > We want to support reading module (SFP+, XFP, ...) EEPROMs as well as > NIC EEPROMs. They will need a different command number and driver > operation, but the structure and arguments will be the same and so we > can share most of the code here. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings<bhutchings@solarflare.com> > --- > net/core/ethtool.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++------- > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c > index beacdd9..ca7698f 100644 > --- a/net/core/ethtool.c > +++ b/net/core/ethtool.c > @@ -751,18 +751,17 @@ static int ethtool_get_link(struct net_device *dev, char __user *useraddr) > return 0; > } > > -static int ethtool_get_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr) > +static int ethtool_get_any_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr, > + int (*getter)(struct net_device *, > + struct ethtool_eeprom *, u8 *), > + u32 total_len) > { > struct ethtool_eeprom eeprom; > - const struct ethtool_ops *ops = dev->ethtool_ops; > void __user *userbuf = useraddr + sizeof(eeprom); > u32 bytes_remaining; > u8 *data; > int ret = 0; > > - if (!ops->get_eeprom || !ops->get_eeprom_len) > - return -EOPNOTSUPP; > - > if (copy_from_user(&eeprom, useraddr, sizeof(eeprom))) > return -EFAULT; > > @@ -771,7 +770,7 @@ static int ethtool_get_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr) > return -EINVAL; > > /* Check for exceeding total eeprom len */ > - if (eeprom.offset + eeprom.len> ops->get_eeprom_len(dev)) > + if (eeprom.offset + eeprom.len> total_len) > return -EINVAL; > > data = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_USER);
Should this not be eeprom.len?
> @@ -782,7 +781,7 @@ static int ethtool_get_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr) > while (bytes_remaining> 0) { > eeprom.len = min(bytes_remaining, (u32)PAGE_SIZE); > > - ret = ops->get_eeprom(dev,&eeprom, data); > + ret = getter(dev,&eeprom, data); > if (ret) > break; > if (copy_to_user(userbuf, data, eeprom.len)) { > @@ -803,6 +802,17 @@ static int ethtool_get_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr) > return ret; > } > > +static int ethtool_get_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr) > +{ > + const struct ethtool_ops *ops = dev->ethtool_ops; > + > + if (!ops->get_eeprom || !ops->get_eeprom_len) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + return ethtool_get_any_eeprom(dev, useraddr, ops->get_eeprom, > + ops->get_eeprom_len(dev)); > +} > + > static int ethtool_set_eeprom(struct net_device *dev, void __user *useraddr) > { > struct ethtool_eeprom eeprom;
This would reduce the code size nicely between the two eeprom fetches.
Stu
| |