From: Will Deacon <will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org"
<grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
"iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org"
<iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: Allow more args than MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS if required
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:23:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150716102325.GC26390@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1437035444-13867-2-git-send-email-joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:30:43AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
>
> The main use of MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS is to define the number of
> args elements in 'struct of_phandle_args'. This struct is
> often declared on the stack and thus it is impractical to
> increase MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS again and again.
>
> To handle situations where more than MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS
> elements may appear in a device-tree, introduce functions
> to allocate/free 'struct of_phandle_args' with more than
> MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS elements and provide the new function
> of_parse_phandle_with_var_args(), which can handle those
> variable-size structs.
>
> This is necessary for the ARM-SMMU driver, where the number
> of mmu-masters can be up to 128.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> drivers/of/base.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> include/linux/of.h | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
> index 8b5a187..2b288db 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,24 @@ DEFINE_MUTEX(of_mutex);
> */
> DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(devtree_lock);
>
> +struct of_phandle_args *of_alloc_phandle_args(int size)
> +{
> + struct of_phandle_args *args;
> + int e = max(0, size - MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS);
> +
> + args = kzalloc(sizeof(struct of_phandle_args) + e * sizeof(uint32_t),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
Should you also update args->args_count to reflect the extended array?
That said, extending the fixed-size array member like this feels a bit
fragile. Does GCC not complain about out-of-bounds accesses if you
statically address args->args[MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS]? Admittedly, I can't
think *why* this would be break (things like additional padding will be
harmless), but I'm not intimate with the C standard.
I guess the more worrying possibility is if somebody adds a new member to
the end of of_phandle_args.
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: Allow more args than MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS if required
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:23:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150716102325.GC26390@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1437035444-13867-2-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:30:43AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
>
> The main use of MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS is to define the number of
> args elements in 'struct of_phandle_args'. This struct is
> often declared on the stack and thus it is impractical to
> increase MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS again and again.
>
> To handle situations where more than MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS
> elements may appear in a device-tree, introduce functions
> to allocate/free 'struct of_phandle_args' with more than
> MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS elements and provide the new function
> of_parse_phandle_with_var_args(), which can handle those
> variable-size structs.
>
> This is necessary for the ARM-SMMU driver, where the number
> of mmu-masters can be up to 128.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
> ---
> drivers/of/base.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> include/linux/of.h | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
> index 8b5a187..2b288db 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,24 @@ DEFINE_MUTEX(of_mutex);
> */
> DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(devtree_lock);
>
> +struct of_phandle_args *of_alloc_phandle_args(int size)
> +{
> + struct of_phandle_args *args;
> + int e = max(0, size - MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS);
> +
> + args = kzalloc(sizeof(struct of_phandle_args) + e * sizeof(uint32_t),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
Should you also update args->args_count to reflect the extended array?
That said, extending the fixed-size array member like this feels a bit
fragile. Does GCC not complain about out-of-bounds accesses if you
statically address args->args[MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS]? Admittedly, I can't
think *why* this would be break (things like additional padding will be
harmless), but I'm not intimate with the C standard.
I guess the more worrying possibility is if somebody adds a new member to
the end of of_phandle_args.
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: "grant.likely@linaro.org" <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: Allow more args than MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS if required
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:23:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150716102325.GC26390@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1437035444-13867-2-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:30:43AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
>
> The main use of MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS is to define the number of
> args elements in 'struct of_phandle_args'. This struct is
> often declared on the stack and thus it is impractical to
> increase MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS again and again.
>
> To handle situations where more than MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS
> elements may appear in a device-tree, introduce functions
> to allocate/free 'struct of_phandle_args' with more than
> MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS elements and provide the new function
> of_parse_phandle_with_var_args(), which can handle those
> variable-size structs.
>
> This is necessary for the ARM-SMMU driver, where the number
> of mmu-masters can be up to 128.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
> ---
> drivers/of/base.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> include/linux/of.h | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
> index 8b5a187..2b288db 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,24 @@ DEFINE_MUTEX(of_mutex);
> */
> DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(devtree_lock);
>
> +struct of_phandle_args *of_alloc_phandle_args(int size)
> +{
> + struct of_phandle_args *args;
> + int e = max(0, size - MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS);
> +
> + args = kzalloc(sizeof(struct of_phandle_args) + e * sizeof(uint32_t),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
Should you also update args->args_count to reflect the extended array?
That said, extending the fixed-size array member like this feels a bit
fragile. Does GCC not complain about out-of-bounds accesses if you
statically address args->args[MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS]? Admittedly, I can't
think *why* this would be break (things like additional padding will be
harmless), but I'm not intimate with the C standard.
I guess the more worrying possibility is if somebody adds a new member to
the end of of_phandle_args.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-16 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-16 8:30 [PATCH 0/2 v2] Fix MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS limitations Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 8:30 ` Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 8:30 ` Joerg Roedel
[not found] ` <1437035444-13867-1-git-send-email-joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2015-07-16 8:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] of: base: Allow more args than MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS if required Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 8:30 ` Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 8:30 ` Joerg Roedel
[not found] ` <1437035444-13867-2-git-send-email-joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2015-07-16 10:23 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2015-07-16 10:23 ` Will Deacon
2015-07-16 10:23 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <20150716102325.GC26390-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2015-07-16 11:09 ` Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 11:09 ` Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 11:09 ` Joerg Roedel
[not found] ` <20150716110900.GA30130-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
2015-07-24 21:27 ` Rob Herring
2015-07-24 21:27 ` Rob Herring
2015-07-24 21:27 ` Rob Herring
2015-07-16 8:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm/smmu: Make use of of_parse_phandle_with_var_args Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 8:30 ` Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 8:30 ` Joerg Roedel
[not found] ` <1437035444-13867-3-git-send-email-joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2015-07-16 10:15 ` Will Deacon
2015-07-16 10:15 ` Will Deacon
2015-07-16 10:15 ` Will Deacon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-07-16 8:22 [PATCH 0/2 v2] Fix MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS limitations Joerg Roedel
2015-07-16 8:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] of: base: Allow more args than MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS if required Joerg Roedel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150716102325.GC26390@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon-5wv7dgnigg8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=jroedel-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.