On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:22:37AM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 07:42:17AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > dma_buf_map_attachment and dma_buf_vmap can return NULL or
> >> > ERR_PTR on a error. This encourages a common buggy pattern in
> >> > callers:
> >> > sgt = dma_buf_map_attachment(attach, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
> >> > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sgt))
> >> > return PTR_ERR(sgt);
> >> >
> >> > This causes the caller to return 0 on an error. IS_ERR_OR_NULL
> >> > is almost always a sign of poorly-defined error handling.
> >> >
> >> > This patch converts dma_buf_map_attachment to always return
> >> > ERR_PTR, and fixes the callers that incorrectly handled NULL.
> >> > There are a few more callers that were not checking for NULL
> >> > at all, which would have dereferenced a NULL pointer later.
> >> > There are also a few more callers that correctly handled NULL
> >> > and ERR_PTR differently, I left those alone but they could also
> >> > be modified to delete the NULL check.
> >> >
> >> > This patch also converts dma_buf_vmap to always return NULL.
> >> > All the callers to dma_buf_vmap only check for NULL, and would
> >> > have dereferenced an ERR_PTR and panic'd if one was ever
> >> > returned. This is not consistent with the rest of the dma buf
> >> > APIs, but matches the expectations of all of the callers.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/base/dma-buf.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c | 2 +-
> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_dmabuf.c | 2 +-
> >> > drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-dma-contig.c | 2 +-
> >> > 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/base/dma-buf.c b/drivers/base/dma-buf.c
> >> > index 1e16cbd61da2..cfe1d8bc7bb8 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/base/dma-buf.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/base/dma-buf.c
> >> > @@ -251,9 +251,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_buf_put);
> >> > * @dmabuf: [in] buffer to attach device to.
> >> > * @dev: [in] device to be attached.
> >> > *
> >> > - * Returns struct dma_buf_attachment * for this attachment; may return negative
> >> > - * error codes.
> >> > - *
> >> > + * Returns struct dma_buf_attachment * for this attachment; returns ERR_PTR on
> >> > + * error.
> >> > */
> >> > struct dma_buf_attachment *dma_buf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> >> > struct device *dev)
> >> > @@ -319,9 +318,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_buf_detach);
> >> > * @attach: [in] attachment whose scatterlist is to be returned
> >> > * @direction: [in] direction of DMA transfer
> >> > *
> >> > - * Returns sg_table containing the scatterlist to be returned; may return NULL
> >> > - * or ERR_PTR.
> >> > - *
> >> > + * Returns sg_table containing the scatterlist to be returned; returns ERR_PTR
> >> > + * on error.
> >> > */
> >> > struct sg_table *dma_buf_map_attachment(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach,
> >> > enum dma_data_direction direction)
> >> > @@ -334,6 +332,8 @@ struct sg_table *dma_buf_map_attachment(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach,
> >> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >> >
> >> > sg_table = attach->dmabuf->ops->map_dma_buf(attach, direction);
> >> > + if (!sg_table)
> >> > + sg_table = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >> >
> >> > return sg_table;
> >> > }
> >> > @@ -544,6 +544,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_buf_mmap);
> >> > * These calls are optional in drivers. The intended use for them
> >> > * is for mapping objects linear in kernel space for high use objects.
> >> > * Please attempt to use kmap/kunmap before thinking about these interfaces.
> >> > + *
> >> > + * Returns NULL on error.
> >> > */
> >> > void *dma_buf_vmap(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> >> > {
> >> > @@ -566,7 +568,9 @@ void *dma_buf_vmap(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
> >> > BUG_ON(dmabuf->vmap_ptr);
> >> >
> >> > ptr = dmabuf->ops->vmap(dmabuf);
> >> > - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ptr))
> >> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(ptr)))
> >>
> >> since vmap is optional, the WARN_ON might be a bit strong.. although
> >> it would be a bit strange for an exporter to supply a vmap fxn which
> >> always returned NULL, not sure about that. Just thought I'd mention
> >> it in case anyone else had an opinion about that.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't like this, it could cause unnecessary reports of problems.
>
> The WARN_ON_ONCE is only if the vmap op returns ERR_PTR, not if it
> returns NULL. This is designed to catch vmap ops that don't follow
> the spec, so I would call them necessary reports, but I can take it
> out if you still disagree.
Ah, ok, that makes more sense. I'll queue this up.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
