On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:15 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:38:28AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:42 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Please Cc the original authors of code if sending some follow up
> > > possible enhancements.
> >
> > Will do. +Jia He
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 02:50:50PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > Setting ->proc_handler to proc_dobool at the same time setting ->maxlen
> > > > to sizeof(int) is counter-intuitive, it is easy to make mistakes in the
> > > > future (When I first use proc_dobool() in my driver, I assign
> > > > sizeof(variable) to table->maxlen. Then I found it was wrong, it should
> > > > be sizeof(int) which was very counter-intuitive).
> > >
> > > How did you find this out? If I change fs/lockd/svc.c's use I get
> > > compile warnings on at least x86_64.
> >
> > I am writing a code like:
> >
> > static bool optimize_vmemmap_enabled;
> >
> > static struct ctl_table hugetlb_vmemmap_sysctls[] = {
> > {
> > .procname = "hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap",
> > .data = &optimize_vmemmap_enabled,
> > .maxlen = sizeof(optimize_vmemmap_enabled),
> > .mode = 0644,
> > .proc_handler = proc_dobool,
> > },
> > { }
> > };
> >
> > At least I don't see any warnings from compiler. And I found
> > the assignment of ".data" should be "sizeof(int)", otherwise,
> > it does not work properly. It is a little weird to me.
>
> This is still odd to me but please clarify in your commit logs
> how you found an issue. You don't need to specify the exact code
> snippet, but just mentioning how you found it helps during
> patch review.
Will do.
>
> > > > For robustness,
> > > > rework proc_dobool() robustly.
> > >
> > > You mention robustness twice. Just say something like:
> > >
> > > To help make things clear, make the logic used by proc_dobool() very
> > > clear with regards to its requirement with working with bools.
> >
> > Clearer! Thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > > So it is an improvement not a real bug
> > > > fix.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > v3:
> > > > - Update commit log.
> > > >
> > > > v2:
> > > > - Reimplementing proc_dobool().
> > > >
> > > > fs/lockd/svc.c | 2 +-
> > > > kernel/sysctl.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svc.c b/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > > > index 59ef8a1f843f..6e48ee787f49 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/lockd/svc.c
> > > > @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ static struct ctl_table nlm_sysctls[] = {
> > > > {
> > > > .procname = "nsm_use_hostnames",
> > > > .data = &nsm_use_hostnames,
> > > > - .maxlen = sizeof(int),
> > > > + .maxlen = sizeof(nsm_use_hostnames),
> > > > .mode = 0644,
> > > > .proc_handler = proc_dobool,
> > > > },
> > >
> > > Should this be a separate patch? What about the rest of the kernel?
> >
> > I afraid not. Since this change of proc_dobool will break the
> > "nsm_use_hostnames". It should be changed to
> > sizeof(nsm_use_hostnames) at the same time.
>
> OK!
>
> > > I see it is only used once so the one commit should mention that also.
> >
> > Well, will do.
>
> OK
>
> > > Or did chaning this as you have it now alter the way the kernel
> > > treats this sysctl? All these things would be useful to clarify
> > > in the commit log.
> >
> > Make sense. I'll mention those things into commit log.
> >
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > > > index e52b6e372c60..50a2c29efc94 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > > > @@ -423,21 +423,6 @@ static void proc_put_char(void **buf, size_t *size, char c)
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static int do_proc_dobool_conv(bool *negp, unsigned long *lvalp,
> > > > - int *valp,
> > > > - int write, void *data)
> > > > -{
> > > > - if (write) {
> > > > - *(bool *)valp = *lvalp;
> > > > - } else {
> > > > - int val = *(bool *)valp;
> > > > -
> > > > - *lvalp = (unsigned long)val;
> > > > - *negp = false;
> > > > - }
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > static int do_proc_dointvec_conv(bool *negp, unsigned long *lvalp,
> > > > int *valp,
> > > > int write, void *data)
> > > > @@ -708,16 +693,31 @@ int do_proc_douintvec(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> > > > * @lenp: the size of the user buffer
> > > > * @ppos: file position
> > > > *
> > > > - * Reads/writes up to table->maxlen/sizeof(unsigned int) integer
> > > > - * values from/to the user buffer, treated as an ASCII string.
> > > > + * Reads/writes up to table->maxlen/sizeof(bool) bool values from/to
> > > > + * the user buffer, treated as an ASCII string.
> > > > *
> > > > * Returns 0 on success.
> > > > */
> > > > int proc_dobool(struct ctl_table *table, int write, void *buffer,
> > > > size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > {
> > > > - return do_proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos,
> > > > - do_proc_dobool_conv, NULL);
> > > > + struct ctl_table tmp = *table;
> > > > + bool *data = table->data;
> > >
> > > Previously do_proc_douintvec() is called, and that checks if table->data
> > > is NULL previously before reading it and if so bails on
> > > __do_proc_dointvec() as follows:
> > >
> > > if (!tbl_data || !table->maxlen || !*lenp || (*ppos && !write)) {
> > > *lenp = 0;
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Is it possible to have table->data be NULL? I think that's where the
> > > above check comes from.
> >
> > At least now it cannot be NULL (no users do this now).
>
> It does not mean new users where it is NULL can't be introduced.
Got it.
>
> > > And, so if it was false but not NULL, would it never do anything?
> >
> > I think we can add the check of NULL in the future if it could be
> > happened, just like proc_dou8vec_minmax and proc_do_static_key
> > do (they do not check ->data as well).
>
> Preventing bad uses ahead of time is definitely prefered.
Agree. Will do.
>
> > > You can use lib/test_sysctl.c for this to proove / disprove correct
> > > functionality.
> >
> > I didn't see the test for proc_bool in lib/test_sysctl.c. I think we can
> > add a separate patch later to add a test for proc_bool.
>
> Yes please.
OK.
>
> > >
> > > > + unsigned int val = READ_ONCE(*data);
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Do not support arrays yet. */
>
> BTW I'd go furether. We don't want to add any more array
> support for anything new. So "we don't support arrays" is better.
>
> > > > + if (table->maxlen != sizeof(bool))
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > This is a separate change, and while I agree with it, as it simplifies
> > > our implementation and we don't want to add more array crap support,
> > > this should *alone* should be a separate commit.
> >
> > If you agree reusing do_proc_douintvec to implement proc_dobool(),
> > I think a separate commit may be not suitable since do_proc_douintvec()
> > only support non-array. Mentioning this in commit log makes sense to me.
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + tmp.maxlen = sizeof(val);
> > >
> > > Why even set this as you do when we know it must be sizeof(bool)?
> > > Or would this break things given do_proc_douintvec() is used?
> >
> > Since we reuse do_proc_douintvec(), which requires a uint type, to
> > get/set the value from/to the users. I think you can refer to the implementation
> > of proc_dou8vec_minmax().
> >
> > >
> > > > + tmp.data = &val;
> > > > + ret = do_proc_douintvec(&tmp, write, buffer, lenp, ppos, NULL, NULL);
> > >
> > > Ugh, since we are avoiding arrays and we are only dealing with bools
> > > I'm inclined to just ask we simpify this a bool implementation which
> > > does something like do_proc_do_bool() but without array and is optimized
> > > just for bools.
> >
> > The current implementation of __do_proc_douintvec() is already only deal
> > with non-array. Maybe it is better to reuse __do_proc_douintvec()? Otherwise,
> > we need to implement a similar functionality (do_proc_do_bool) like it but just
> > process bool type. I suspect the changes will be not small. I am wondering is it
> > value to do this? If yes, should we also rework proc_dou8vec_minmax() as well?
>
> I hate code which is obfuscates. Even if it s longer. My preference is
> to open code a few things here even if it is adding new code.
>
All right. Let's recreate a good start.
Thanks.
> Luis
