Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] staging/android: add flags member to sync ioctl structs

[Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>]

Hi Emil,

2016-02-27 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>:

> Hi Gustavo,
> 
> On 26 February 2016 at 18:31, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org> wrote:
> > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
> >
> > Play safe and add flags member to all structs. So we don't need to
> > break API or create new IOCTL in the future if new features that requires
> > flags arises.
> >
> > v2: check if flags are valid (zero, in this case)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/android/sync.c      | 7 ++++++-
> >  drivers/staging/android/uapi/sync.h | 6 ++++++
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/sync.c b/drivers/staging/android/sync.c
> > index 837cff5..54fd5ab 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/android/sync.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/sync.c
> > @@ -445,6 +445,11 @@ static long sync_file_ioctl_merge(struct sync_file *sync_file,
> >                 goto err_put_fd;
> >         }
> >
> > +       if (data.flags) {
> > +               err = -EFAULT;
> -EINVAL ?
> 
> > +               goto err_put_fd;
> > +       }
> > +
> >         fence2 = sync_file_fdget(data.fd2);
> >         if (!fence2) {
> >                 err = -ENOENT;
> > @@ -511,7 +516,7 @@ static long sync_file_ioctl_fence_info(struct sync_file *sync_file,
> >         if (copy_from_user(&in, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(*info)))
> >                 return -EFAULT;
> >
> > -       if (in.status || strcmp(in.name, "\0"))
> > +       if (in.status || in.flags || strcmp(in.name, "\0"))
> >                 return -EFAULT;
> -EINVAL ?
> 
> >
> >         if (in.num_fences && !in.sync_fence_info)
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/uapi/sync.h b/drivers/staging/android/uapi/sync.h
> > index 9aad623..f56a6c2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/android/uapi/sync.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/uapi/sync.h
> > @@ -19,11 +19,13 @@
> >   * @fd2:       file descriptor of second fence
> >   * @name:      name of new fence
> >   * @fence:     returns the fd of the new fence to userspace
> > + * @flags:     merge_data flags
> >   */
> >  struct sync_merge_data {
> >         __s32   fd2;
> >         char    name[32];
> >         __s32   fence;
> > +       __u32   flags;
> The overall size of the struct is not multiple of 64bit, so things
> will end up badly if we decide to extend it in the future. Even if
> there's a small chance that update will be needed, we might as well
> pad it now (and check the padding for zero, returning -EINVAL).

I think name could be the first field here.

> 
> >  };
> >
> >  /**
> > @@ -31,12 +33,14 @@ struct sync_merge_data {
> >   * @obj_name:          name of parent sync_timeline
> >   * @driver_name:       name of driver implementing the parent
> >   * @status:            status of the fence 0:active 1:signaled <0:error
> > + * @flags:             fence_info flags
> >   * @timestamp_ns:      timestamp of status change in nanoseconds
> >   */
> >  struct sync_fence_info {
> >         char    obj_name[32];
> >         char    driver_name[32];
> >         __s32   status;
> > +       __u32   flags;
> >         __u64   timestamp_ns;
> Should we be doing some form of validation in sync_fill_fence_info()
> of 'flags' ?

Do you think it is necessary? The kernel allocates a zero'ed buffer to
fill sync_fence_info array.

	Gustavo