On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 4:49 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 18:06:37 +0000
> "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 9/19/22 20:18, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:32:14 +0100
> > > Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 08:52:38 +0000
> > >> "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 9/9/22 11:12, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> > >>>> Hi dee Ho peeps!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Disclaimer - I have no HW to test this using real in-tree drivers. If
> > >>>> someone has a device with a variant of bmc150 or adxl372 or - it'd be
> > >>>> nice to see if reading hwfifo_watermark_max or hwfifo_watermark_min
> > >>>> works with the v6.0-rc4. Maybe I am misreading code and have my own
> > >>>> issues - in which case I apologize already now and go to the corner
> > >>>> while being deeply ashamed :)
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to add at least the at91-sama5d2_adc (conditonally
> > >>> registers the IIO_CONST_ATTR for triggered-buffer) to the list of
> > >>> devices that could be potentially tested. I hope some of these devices
> > >>> had a user who could either make us worried and verify my assumption -
> > >>> or make me ashamed but rest of us relieved :) Eg - I second my request
> > >>> for testing this - and add potential owners of at91-sama5d2_adc to the list.
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 2/15/21 12:40, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > >>>>> This change wraps all buffer attributes into iio_dev_attr objects, and
> > >>>>> assigns a reference to the IIO buffer they belong to.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> With the addition of multiple IIO buffers per one IIO device, we need a way
> > >>>>> to know which IIO buffer is being enabled/disabled/controlled.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We know that all buffer attributes are device_attributes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think this assumption is slightly unsafe. I see few drivers adding
> > >>>> IIO_CONST_ATTRs in attribute groups. For example the bmc150 and adxl372
> > >>>> add the hwfifo_watermark_min and hwfifo_watermark_max.
Took me a while to get to this and read in-depth.
Yep.
Apologies.
I omitted the IIO_CONST_ATTRs when I did that change.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> and at91-sama5d2_adc
> > >>>
> > >>> //snip
> > >>>
> > >>>> I noticed that using
> > >>>> IIO_CONST_ATTRs for triggered buffers seem to cause access to somewhere
> > >>>> it shouldn't... Oops.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Reading the code allows me to assume the problem is wrapping the
> > >>>> attributes to IIO_DEV_ATTRs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> static struct attribute *iio_buffer_wrap_attr(struct iio_buffer *buffer,
> > >>>> + struct attribute *attr)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + struct device_attribute *dattr = to_dev_attr(attr);
> > >>>> + struct iio_dev_attr *iio_attr;
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + iio_attr = kzalloc(sizeof(*iio_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >>>> + if (!iio_attr)
> > >>>> + return NULL;
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + iio_attr->buffer = buffer;
> > >>>> + memcpy(&iio_attr->dev_attr, dattr, sizeof(iio_attr->dev_attr));
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This copy does assume all attributes are device_attrs, and does not take
> > >>>> into account that IIO_CONST_ATTRS have the string stored in a struct
> > >>>> iio_const_attr which is containing the dev_attr. Eg, copying in the
> > >>>> iio_buffer_wrap_attr() does not copy the string - and later invoking the
> > >>>> 'show' callback goes reading something else than the mentioned string
> > >>>> because the pointer is not copied.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yours,
> > >>> -- Matti
> > >> Hi Matti,
> > >>
> > >> +CC Alexandru on a current email address.
> > >>
> > >> I saw this whilst travelling and completely forgot about when
> > >> I was back to normal - so great you sent a follow up!
> >
> > I was also participating at ELCE last week so didn't do much of emails/code.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Anyhow, your reasoning seems correct and it would be easy enough
> > >> to add such a case to iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c and
> > >> provide a clear test for the problem.
> > >>
> > >> As to solutions. The quickest is probably to switch these const attrs
> > >> over to a non const form and add a comment to the header to say they are
> > >> unsuitable for use with buffers.
> > >
> > > Thinking a little more on this - all / (most?) of the users pass a null terminated
> > > array of struct device_attribute * to *iio_triggered_buffer_setup_ext()
> > >
> > > That's then assigned to buffer->attrs.
> > > We could add an additional pointer to the struct iio_buffer to take
> > > a null terminated array of struct iio_dev_attr *
> > > and change the signature of that function to take one of those, thus
> > > preventing us using iio_const_attr structures for this.
> >
> > Yes. I would also rather see pointer to array of struct iio_dev_attr *
> > if we continue keeping the assumption that attrs are of type iio_dev_attr.
> >
> > >
> > > Then we can wrap those just fine in the code you highlighted and assign the
> > > result into buffer->attrs.
> > >
> > > We'd need to precede that change with fixes that just switch the
> > > iio_const_attr uses over to iio_dev_attr but changing this would ensure no
> > > accidental reintroductions of the problem in future drivers (typically
> > > as a result of someone forward porting a driver that is out of tree).
> >
> > Again I do agree. Besides change of const_attrs is necessary in any case
> > if we don't change the wrapping.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Would you like to send patches given you identified the problem?
> >
> > I am in any case about to send couple of patches to IIO. The devm-helper
> > usage (v2 - I sent v1 from my other email address (mazziesaccount) - but
> > I am the same person :] ) and a new accelerometer driver. So, I can look
> > also at this change while I am at it if you're busy).
> >
> > >> If not I'm happy to fix these up. My grepping identified the same 3 cases
> > >> you found.
> >
> > Feel free to patch this if you wish. Just please let me know if you take
> > care of this so we don't do double the work :)
>
> I'm never one to turn down a volunteer, so I'll leave these for you :)
>
> Plenty of other things on the todo list that I can be getting on with.
>
> Jonathan
>
> >
> > Yours
> > -- Matti
> >
> >
>
