On Thu 2019-11-28 02:58:34, John Ogness wrote:
> Add the reader implementation for the new ringbuffer.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c | 234 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.h | 12 +-
> 2 files changed, 245 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c b/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c
> index 09c32e52fd40..f85762713583 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c
> @@ -674,3 +674,237 @@ void prb_commit(struct prb_reserved_entry *e)
> local_irq_restore(e->irqflags);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(prb_commit);
> +
> +/*
> + * Given @blk_lpos, return a pointer to the raw data from the data block
> + * and calculate the size of the data part. A NULL pointer is returned
> + * if @blk_lpos specifies values that could never be legal.
> + *
> + * This function (used by readers) performs strict validation on the lpos
> + * values to possibly detect bugs in the writer code. A WARN_ON_ONCE() is
> + * triggered if an internal error is detected.
> + */
> +static char *get_data(struct prb_data_ring *data_ring,
> + struct prb_data_blk_lpos *blk_lpos,
> + unsigned long *data_size)
> +{
> + struct prb_data_block *db;
> +
> + if (blk_lpos->begin == INVALID_LPOS &&
> + blk_lpos->next == INVALID_LPOS) {
> + /* descriptor without a data block */
> + return NULL;
> + } else if (DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->begin) ==
> + DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->next)) {
> + /* regular data block */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(blk_lpos->next <= blk_lpos->begin))
> + return NULL;
> + db = to_block(data_ring, blk_lpos->begin);
> + *data_size = blk_lpos->next - blk_lpos->begin;
> +
> + } else if ((DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->begin) + 1 ==
> + DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->next)) ||
> + ((DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->begin) ==
> + DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, -1UL)) &&
> + (DATA_WRAPS(data_ring, blk_lpos->next) == 0))) {
I am a bit confused. I would expect that (-1UL + 1) = 0. So the second
condition after || looks just like a special variant of the first
valid condition.
Or do I miss anything? Is there a problems with type casting?
> + /* wrapping data block */
> + db = to_block(data_ring, 0);
> + *data_size = DATA_INDEX(data_ring, blk_lpos->next);
> +
> + } else {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + /* A valid data block will always be aligned to the ID size. */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(blk_lpos->begin !=
> + ALIGN(blk_lpos->begin, sizeof(db->id))) ||
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(blk_lpos->next !=
> + ALIGN(blk_lpos->next, sizeof(db->id)))) {
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + /* A valid data block will always have at least an ID. */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(*data_size < sizeof(db->id)))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + /* Subtract descriptor ID space from size. */
> + *data_size -= sizeof(db->id);
> +
> + return &db->data[0];
> +}
> +
> +/* Given @blk_lpos, copy an expected @len of data into the provided buffer. */
> +static bool copy_data(struct prb_data_ring *data_ring,
> + struct prb_data_blk_lpos *blk_lpos, u16 len, char *buf,
> + unsigned int buf_size)
> +{
> + unsigned long data_size;
> + char *data;
> +
> + /* Caller might not want the data. */
> + if (!buf || !buf_size)
> + return true;
> +
> + data = get_data(data_ring, blk_lpos, &data_size);
> + if (!data)
> + return false;
> +
> + /* Actual cannot be less than expected. */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(data_size < len))
> + return false;
I do not have a good feeling that the record gets lost here.
I could imagine that a writer would reserve more space than
needed in the end. Then it would want to modify desc.info.text_len
and could do a mistake.
By other words, I would expect a bug on the writer side here.
And I would try to preserve the data by calling:
pr_warn_once("Wrong data_size (%lu) for data: %.*s\n", data_size,
data_size, data);
Well, I do not resist on it. WARN_ON_ONCE() is fine as well.
> +
> + data_size = min_t(u16, buf_size, len);
> +
> + if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!data_size))
> + memcpy(&buf[0], data, data_size);
> + return true;
> +}
> +
Otherwise it looks good to me. I wonder how the conversion
of the printk.c code will look with this API.
Best Regards,
Petr
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
