On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 08:20:46PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:11:01PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:44:45PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:40:38PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 04:17:46PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > > On 4/19/20 4:05 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 03:57:58PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4/19/20 12:45 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > > > > > Even though debugfs can be disabled, enabling BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE will
> > > > > > > > select DEBUG_FS, and blktrace exposes an API which userspace uses
> > > > > > > > relying on certain files created in debugfs. If files are not created
> > > > > > > > blktrace will not work correctly, so we do want to ensure that a
> > > > > > > > blktrace setup creates these files properly, and otherwise inform
> > > > > > > > userspace.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > kernel/trace/blktrace.c | 8 +++++---
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/blktrace.c b/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> > > > > > > > index 9cc0153849c3..fc32a8665ce8 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -552,17 +552,19 @@ static int blk_trace_create_debugfs_files(struct blk_user_trace_setup *buts,
> > > > > > > > struct dentry *dir,
> > > > > > > > struct blk_trace *bt)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > - int ret = -EIO;
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > bt->dropped_file = debugfs_create_file("dropped", 0444, dir, bt,
> > > > > > > > &blk_dropped_fops);
> > > > > > > > + if (!bt->dropped_file)
> > > > > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > bt->msg_file = debugfs_create_file("msg", 0222, dir, bt, &blk_msg_fops);
> > > > > > > > + if (!bt->msg_file)
> > > > > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > bt->rchan = relay_open("trace", dir, buts->buf_size,
> > > > > > > > buts->buf_nr, &blk_relay_callbacks, bt);
> > > > > > > > if (!bt->rchan)
> > > > > > > > - return ret;
> > > > > > > > + return -EIO;
> > > > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I should have had a look at this patch before I replied to the previous
> > > > > > > patch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you agree that the following code can be triggered by
> > > > > > > debugfs_create_file() and also that debugfs_create_file() never returns
> > > > > > > NULL?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If debugfs is enabled, and not that we know it is in this blktrace code,
> > > > > > as we select it, it can return ERR_PTR(-ERROR) if an error occurs.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is what I found in include/linux/debugfs.h in case debugfs is disabled:
> > > > >
> > > > > static inline struct dentry *debugfs_create_file(const char *name,
> > > > > umode_t mode, struct dentry *parent, void *data,
> > > > > const struct file_operations *fops)
> > > > > {
> > > > > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not found any code path that can cause debugfs_create_file() to
> > > > > return NULL. Did I perhaps overlook something? If not, it's not clear to me
> > > > > why the above patch adds checks that check whether debugfs_create_file()
> > > > > returns NULL?
> > > >
> > > > Short answer, yes, it can return NULL. Correct answer is, you don't
> > > > care, don't check the value and don't do anything about it. It's
> > > > debugging code, userspace doesn't care, so just keep moving on.
> > >
> > > Thing is this code *exposes* knobs to userspace for an API that *does*
> > > exepect those files to exist. That is, blktrace *relies* on these
> > > debugfs files to exist. So the kconfig which enables blktrace
> > > CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE selects DEBUG_FS.
> >
> > That's nice, but again, no kernel code should do anything different
> > depending on what debugfs happens to be doing at that point in time.
>
> So even if the debugfs files were *not* created, and this code executes only
> if DEBUG_FS, you don't think we should inform userspace if the blktrace
> setup ioctl, which sets up these debugfs, didn't happen?
>
> The "recovery" here would just be to destroy the blktrace setup, and
> inform userspace that the blktrace setup ioctl failed.
Hm, ok, but comment the heck out of this saying _why_ you are testing
the return value, and how that differs from 99% of the other users of
this function in the kernel tree please.
Otherwise I will end up removing the checks again with my semi-regular
sweep of the tree...
thanks,
greg k-h
