On Sun, 2020-03-22 at 16:31 +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> [External]
>
> On Sun, 2020-03-22 at 09:16 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 12:45:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > +Cc Kees (see below about allocation size checks)
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:36 AM Ardelean, Alexandru
> > > <alexandru.Ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2020-03-21 at 23:38 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:55 AM Alexandru Ardelean
> > > > > <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > +static struct adi_axi_adc_conv *adi_axi_adc_conv_register(struct
> > > > > > device
> > > > > > *dev,
> > > > > > + int
> > > > > > sizeof_priv)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct adi_axi_adc_client *cl;
> > > > > > + size_t alloc_size;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + alloc_size = sizeof(struct adi_axi_adc_client);
> > > > > > + if (sizeof_priv) {
> > > > > > + alloc_size = ALIGN(alloc_size, IIO_ALIGN);
> > > > > > + alloc_size += sizeof_priv;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + alloc_size += IIO_ALIGN - 1;
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you looked at linux/overflow.h?
> > > >
> > > > i did now;
> > > > any hints where i should look closer?
> > >
> > > It seems it lacks of this kind of allocation size checks... Perhaps add
> > > one?
> > > Kees, what do you think?
> > >
> > > > > > + cl = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > + if (!cl)
> > > > > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >
> > My head hurts trying to read this! ;) Okay, so the base size is
> > sizeof(struct adi_axi_adc_client). But if sizeof_priv is non-zero
> > (this arg should be size_t not int), then we need to make the struct
> > size ALIGNed? And then what is the "+= IIO_ALIGN - 1" for?
> >
> > It's not clear to me what the expect alignment/padding is here.
> >
> > I would probably construct this as:
> >
> > sizeof_self = sizeof(struct adi_axi_adc_client);
> > if (sizeof_priv)
> > sizeof_self = ALIGN(sizeof_self, IIO_ALIGN);
> > if (check_add_overflow(sizeof_self, sizeof_priv, &sizeof_alloc))
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > if (check_add_overflow(sizeof_alloc, IIO_ALIGN - 1, &sizeof_alloc))
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> Ok, but the question is: shouldn't this be done in kmalloc()/kzalloc?
> Why do it in each driver?
> I don't see this done in many drivers.
Disregard this comment.
It's late here, and I'm having trouble reading the code.
But, this feels a bit weird popping up now, when trying to re-use code that
already existed in parts of IIO.
All I did was copy bits from iio_device_alloc(), and now it seems I have to
write compiler/overflow checks.
>
> > But I don't understand the "IIO_ALIGN - 1" part, so I assume this could
> > be shortened with better use of ALIGN()?
> >
> > Also, this feels like a weird driver allocation overall:
> >
> > + struct adi_axi_adc_conv **ptr, *conv;
> > +
> > + ptr = devres_alloc(devm_adi_axi_adc_conv_release, sizeof(*ptr),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!ptr)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > + conv = adi_axi_adc_conv_register(dev, sizeof_priv);
> >
> > devres_alloc() allocates storage for a _single pointer_. :P That's not
> > useful for resource tracking. Why is devres_alloc() being called here
> > and not down in adi_axi_adc_conv_register() and just passing the pointer
> > back up?
This was initially implemented as having 2 parts: 1 adi_axi_adc_conv_register()
and 1 devm_adi_axi_adc_conv_register() which were both exported.
It was deciced earlier to remove the adi_axi_adc_conv_register() part.
> >
