Hi Hans,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:36:59PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>
>
> On 07/21/2016 01:17 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Instead of checking for a strict size for the IOCTL arguments, place
> > minimum and maximum limits.
>
> This sentence is out of date: it checks for alternative smaller sizes, not
> min/max.
>
> >
> > As an additional bonus, IOCTL handlers will be able to check whether the
> > caller actually set (using the argument size) the field vs. assigning it
> > to zero. Separate macro can be provided for that.
> >
> > This will be easier for applications as well since there is no longer the
> > problem of setting the reserved fields zero, or at least it is a lesser
> > problem.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/media-device.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/media-device.c b/drivers/media/media-device.c
> > index 6dfcc50..c7be2ce 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/media-device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/media-device.c
> > @@ -384,32 +384,71 @@ static long copy_arg_to_user(void __user *uarg, void *karg, unsigned int cmd)
> > /* Do acquire the graph mutex */
> > #define MEDIA_IOC_FL_GRAPH_MUTEX BIT(0)
> >
> > -#define MEDIA_IOC_ARG(__cmd, func, fl, from_user, to_user) \
> > +#define MEDIA_IOC_SZ_ARG(__cmd, func, fl, alt_sz, from_user, to_user) \
> > [_IOC_NR(MEDIA_IOC_##__cmd)] = { \
> > .cmd = MEDIA_IOC_##__cmd, \
> > .fn = (long (*)(struct media_device *, void *))func, \
> > .flags = fl, \
> > + .alt_arg_sizes = alt_sz, \
> > .arg_from_user = from_user, \
> > .arg_to_user = to_user, \
> > }
> >
> > -#define MEDIA_IOC(__cmd, func, fl) \
> > - MEDIA_IOC_ARG(__cmd, func, fl, copy_arg_from_user, copy_arg_to_user)
> > +#define MEDIA_IOC_ARG(__cmd, func, fl, from_user, to_user) \
> > + MEDIA_IOC_SZ_ARG(__cmd, func, fl, NULL, from_user, to_user)
> > +
> > +#define MEDIA_IOC_SZ(__cmd, func, fl, alt_sz) \
> > + MEDIA_IOC_SZ_ARG(__cmd, func, fl, alt_sz, \
> > + copy_arg_from_user, copy_arg_to_user)
> > +
> > +#define MEDIA_IOC(__cmd, func, fl) \
> > + MEDIA_IOC_ARG(__cmd, func, fl, \
> > + copy_arg_from_user, copy_arg_to_user)
> >
> > /* the table is indexed by _IOC_NR(cmd) */
> > struct media_ioctl_info {
> > unsigned int cmd;
> > unsigned short flags;
> > + const unsigned short *alt_arg_sizes;
>
> I think an additional comment would be useful here.
>
> > long (*fn)(struct media_device *dev, void *arg);
> > long (*arg_from_user)(void *karg, void __user *uarg, unsigned int cmd);
> > long (*arg_to_user)(void __user *uarg, void *karg, unsigned int cmd);
> > };
> >
> > +#define MASK_IOC_SIZE(cmd) \
> > + ((cmd) & ~(_IOC_SIZEMASK << _IOC_SIZESHIFT))
> > +
> > static inline long is_valid_ioctl(const struct media_ioctl_info *info,
> > unsigned int len, unsigned int cmd)
> > {
> > - return (_IOC_NR(cmd) >= len
> > - || info[_IOC_NR(cmd)].cmd != cmd) ? -ENOIOCTLCMD : 0;
> > + const unsigned short *alt_arg_sizes;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(_IOC_NR(cmd) >= len))
>
> Please don't use 'unlikely'. Unless you can prove with hard numbers that it actually
> make a performance difference it only pollutes the code.
>
> > + return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
> > +
> > + info += _IOC_NR(cmd);
> > +
> > + if (info->cmd == cmd)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Verify that the size-dependent patch of the IOCTL command
> > + * matches and that the size does not exceed the principal
> > + * argument size.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(MASK_IOC_SIZE(info->cmd) != MASK_IOC_SIZE(cmd)
> > + || _IOC_SIZE(info->cmd) < _IOC_SIZE(cmd)))
> > + return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
> > +
> > + alt_arg_sizes = info->alt_arg_sizes;
> > + if (unlikely(!alt_arg_sizes))
> > + return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
> > +
> > + for (; *alt_arg_sizes; alt_arg_sizes++)
> > + if (_IOC_SIZE(cmd) == *alt_arg_sizes)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
> > }
> >
> > static long __media_device_ioctl(
> > @@ -440,6 +479,9 @@ static long __media_device_ioctl(
> > goto out_free;
> > }
> >
> > + /* Set the rest of the argument struct to zero */
> > + memset(karg + _IOC_SIZE(cmd), 0, _IOC_SIZE(info->cmd) - _IOC_SIZE(cmd));
> > +
> > if (info->flags & MEDIA_IOC_FL_GRAPH_MUTEX)
> > mutex_lock(&dev->graph_mutex);
> >
> >
>
> I'm in two minds: I like this idea, but on the other hand it is not actually needed at
> the moment. So should we just park this in patchwork until needed, or apply anyway?
>
> Comments?
>
> Personally I think it is better to park it. I don't like code that isn't actually needed.
Nothing really needs the patch right now, I agree.
My concern is that will enough many people remember this patch when the next
new IOCTL is added? If not, we'll have reserved fields again. When this
patch is needed is not a question of "if", it is a question of "when".
I just updated the set. We can then decided whether we want to merge all of
the patches at once (or not).
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
