Hi,
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +int rpmh_write(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state,
> + const struct tcs_cmd *cmd, u32 n)
> +{
> + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(compl);
> + DEFINE_RPMH_MSG_ONSTACK(dev, state, &compl, rpm_msg);
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!cmd || !n || n > MAX_RPMH_PAYLOAD)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + memcpy(rpm_msg.cmd, cmd, n * sizeof(*cmd));
> + rpm_msg.msg.num_cmds = n;
> +
> + ret = __rpmh_write(dev, state, &rpm_msg);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&compl, RPMH_TIMEOUT_MS);
IMO it's almost never a good idea to use wait_for_completion_timeout()
together with a completion that's declared on the stack. If you
somehow insist that this is a good idea then I need to see incredibly
clear and obvious code/comments that say why it's impossible that the
process might somehow try to signal the completion _after_
RPMH_TIMEOUT_MS has expired.
Specifically if the timeout happens but the process could still signal
a completion later then they will access random data on the stack of a
function that has already returned. This causes ridiculously
difficult-to-debug crashes.
NOTE: You've got timeout set to 10 seconds here. Is that really even
useful? IMO just call wait_for_completion() without a timeout. It's
much better to have a nice clean hang than a random stack corruption.
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
