On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 02:24:08AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Ever since sysfs migration, class_process_proc_param stopped working
> correctly as all the useful params were no longer present as lvars.
> Replace all the nasty fake proc writes with hopefully less nasty
> kobject attribute search and then update the attributes as needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Al has quite rightfully complained in the past that class_process_proc_param
> is a terrible piece of code and needs to go.
> This patch is an attempt at improving it somewhat and in process drop
> all the user/kernel address space games we needed to play to make it work
> in the past (and which I suspect attracted Al's attention in the first place).
>
> Now I wonder if iterating kobject attributes like that would be ok with
> you Greg, or do you think there is a better way?
> class_find_write_attr could be turned into something generic since it's
> certainly convenient to reuse same table of name-write_method pairs,
> but I did some cursory research and nobody else seems to need anything
> of the sort in-tree.
>
> I know ll_process_config is still awful and I will likely just
> replace the current hack with kset_find_obj, but I just wanted to make
> sure this new approach would be ok before spending too much time on it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h | 4 +-
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c | 10 +--
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_obd.c | 3 +-
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_request.c | 3 +-
> .../staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c | 78 ++++++++++------------
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c | 3 +-
> 6 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h
> index 083a6ff..badafb8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h
> @@ -114,8 +114,8 @@ typedef int (*llog_cb_t)(const struct lu_env *, struct llog_handle *,
> struct llog_rec_hdr *, void *);
> /* obd_config.c */
> int class_process_config(struct lustre_cfg *lcfg);
> -int class_process_proc_param(char *prefix, struct lprocfs_vars *lvars,
> - struct lustre_cfg *lcfg, void *data);
> +int class_process_attr_param(char *prefix, struct kobject *kobj,
> + struct lustre_cfg *lcfg);
As you are exporting these functions, they will need to end up with a
lustre_* prefix eventually :)
> struct obd_device *class_incref(struct obd_device *obd,
> const char *scope, const void *source);
> void class_decref(struct obd_device *obd,
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c
> index 7b80040..192b877 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c
> @@ -2259,7 +2259,7 @@ int ll_obd_statfs(struct inode *inode, void __user *arg)
> int ll_process_config(struct lustre_cfg *lcfg)
> {
> char *ptr;
> - void *sb;
> + struct super_block *sb;
> struct lprocfs_static_vars lvars;
> unsigned long x;
> int rc = 0;
> @@ -2273,15 +2273,15 @@ int ll_process_config(struct lustre_cfg *lcfg)
> rc = kstrtoul(ptr, 16, &x);
> if (rc != 0)
> return -EINVAL;
> - sb = (void *)x;
> + sb = (struct super_block *)x;
> /* This better be a real Lustre superblock! */
> - LASSERT(s2lsi((struct super_block *)sb)->lsi_lmd->lmd_magic == LMD_MAGIC);
> + LASSERT(s2lsi(sb)->lsi_lmd->lmd_magic == LMD_MAGIC);
>
> /* Note we have not called client_common_fill_super yet, so
> * proc fns must be able to handle that!
> */
> - rc = class_process_proc_param(PARAM_LLITE, lvars.obd_vars,
> - lcfg, sb);
> + rc = class_process_attr_param(PARAM_LLITE, &ll_s2sbi(sb)->ll_kobj,
> + lcfg);
> if (rc > 0)
> rc = 0;
> return rc;
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_obd.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_obd.c
> index b3161fb..c33a327 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_obd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_obd.c
> @@ -926,8 +926,7 @@ int lov_process_config_base(struct obd_device *obd, struct lustre_cfg *lcfg,
>
> lprocfs_lov_init_vars(&lvars);
>
> - rc = class_process_proc_param(PARAM_LOV, lvars.obd_vars,
> - lcfg, obd);
> + rc = class_process_attr_param(PARAM_LOV, &obd->obd_kobj, lcfg);
> if (rc > 0)
> rc = 0;
> goto out;
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_request.c
> index 6bc2fb8..00387b8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_request.c
> @@ -2670,8 +2670,7 @@ static int mdc_process_config(struct obd_device *obd, u32 len, void *buf)
> lprocfs_mdc_init_vars(&lvars);
> switch (lcfg->lcfg_command) {
> default:
> - rc = class_process_proc_param(PARAM_MDC, lvars.obd_vars,
> - lcfg, obd);
> + rc = class_process_attr_param(PARAM_MDC, &obd->obd_kobj, lcfg);
> if (rc > 0)
> rc = 0;
> break;
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c
> index 8fce88f..08fd126 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c
> @@ -995,26 +995,42 @@ int class_process_config(struct lustre_cfg *lcfg)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(class_process_config);
>
> -int class_process_proc_param(char *prefix, struct lprocfs_vars *lvars,
> - struct lustre_cfg *lcfg, void *data)
> +static int class_find_write_attr(struct kobject *kobj, char *name, int namelen,
> + char *val, int vallen)
> +{
> + struct attribute *attr;
> + struct kobj_type *kt = get_ktype(kobj);
> + int i;
> +
> + /* Empty object? */
> + if (!kt || !kt->default_attrs)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + for (i = 0; (attr = kt->default_attrs[i]) != NULL; i++) {
> + if (!strncmp(attr->name, name, namelen) &&
> + namelen == strlen(attr->name)) {
Why do you care about namelen? Why can't you just do a "normal"
strcmp()? Is this "untrusted" user data?
> + if (kt->sysfs_ops && kt->sysfs_ops->store)
> + return kt->sysfs_ops->store(kobj, attr, val,
> + vallen);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return -ENOENT;
> +}
> +
> +int class_process_attr_param(char *prefix, struct kobject *kobj,
> + struct lustre_cfg *lcfg)
> {
> - struct lprocfs_vars *var;
> - struct file fakefile;
> - struct seq_file fake_seqfile;
> char *key, *sval;
> int i, keylen, vallen;
> - int matched = 0, j = 0;
> int rc = 0;
> - int skip = 0;
>
> if (lcfg->lcfg_command != LCFG_PARAM) {
> CERROR("Unknown command: %d\n", lcfg->lcfg_command);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - /* fake a seq file so that var->fops->write can work... */
> - fakefile.private_data = &fake_seqfile;
> - fake_seqfile.private = data;
> /* e.g. tunefs.lustre --param mdt.group_upcall=foo /r/tmp/lustre-mdt
> * or lctl conf_param lustre-MDT0000.mdt.group_upcall=bar
> * or lctl conf_param lustre-OST0000.osc.max_dirty_mb=36
> @@ -1038,39 +1054,16 @@ int class_process_proc_param(char *prefix, struct lprocfs_vars *lvars,
> keylen = sval - key;
> sval++;
> vallen = strlen(sval);
> - matched = 0;
> - j = 0;
> - /* Search proc entries */
> - while (lvars[j].name) {
> - var = &lvars[j];
> - if (!class_match_param(key, var->name, NULL) &&
> - keylen == strlen(var->name)) {
> - matched++;
> - rc = -EROFS;
> - if (var->fops && var->fops->write) {
> - mm_segment_t oldfs;
> -
> - oldfs = get_fs();
> - set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> - rc = var->fops->write(&fakefile,
> - (const char __user *)sval,
> - vallen, NULL);
> - set_fs(oldfs);
> - }
> - break;
> - }
> - j++;
> - }
> - if (!matched) {
> + rc = class_find_write_attr(kobj, key, keylen, sval, vallen);
> +
> + if (rc == -ENOENT) {
> CERROR("%.*s: %s unknown param %s\n",
> (int)strlen(prefix) - 1, prefix,
> (char *)lustre_cfg_string(lcfg, 0), key);
> /* rc = -EINVAL; continue parsing other params */
> - skip++;
> } else if (rc < 0) {
> - CERROR("%s: error writing proc entry '%s': rc = %d\n",
> - prefix, var->name, rc);
> - rc = 0;
> + CERROR("%s: error writing proc entry '%.*s': rc = %d\n",
> + prefix, keylen, key, rc);
It's not a "proc" entry anymore :)
Other than that minor issue, and the question about namelen, this looks
semi-sane to me. Want to resend this as a non-rfc patch?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
