Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] staging: android: Remove BUG from ion_system_heap.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:25:26AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 8/21/20 8:28 AM, Tomer Samara wrote:
> > Remove BUG() from ion_sytem_heap.c
> > 
> > this fix the following checkpatch issue:
> > Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON &
> > recovery code ratherthan BUG() or BUG_ON().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tomer Samara <tomersamara98@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c
> > index eac0632ab4e8..00d6154aec34 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int order_to_index(unsigned int order)
> >  	for (i = 0; i < NUM_ORDERS; i++)
> >  		if (order == orders[i])
> >  			return i;
> > -	BUG();
> > +	/* This is impossible. */
> >  	return -1;
> >  }
> 
> Hi,
> Please explain why this is impossible.
> 
> If some caller calls order_to_index(5), it will return -1, yes?
> 
> -- 
> ~Randy
> 

As Dan Carpenter says here https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1597865771.git.tomersamara98@xxxxxxxxx/T/#mc790b91029565b1bb0cb87997b39007d9edb6e04.
After looking at callers we see that order_to_index called from 2 functions:
- alloc_buffer_page called from alloc_largest_available which 
  loop over all legit order nubmers
  ( Flow:
   alloc_largest_available-->alloc_buffer_page-->order_to_index
  )

- free_buffer_page takes the order using compound_order, which return 0 or
  the order number for the page, this function has 2 callers too,
  ion_system_heap_allocate (which called it in case of failure at sg_alloc_table,
  thus calling from this flow will no casue error) and ion_system_heap_free
  (which will be called on every sg table in the buffer that allocated good,
  meaning from this flow also error will not be created).
  ( Flows:
   ion_system_heap_free     --> free_buffer_page --> order_to_index
   ion_system_heap_allocate --> free_buffer_page --> order_to_index
  )

Of course if some user will use this function with wrong order number he will be able to get this -1.
So should I remove this comment and resotre the error checks?
Btw, this is the same reason that I dropped the error check at ion_page_pool_shrink, so should I restore here also?

Thanks,
	Tomer Samara

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux