Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] media: Determine early whether an IOCTL is supported

Sakari Ailus
2016-09-13T10:51:32Z

Hi Mauro,

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 06:56:17AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:29:14 +0300
> Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> escreveu:
>
> > Preparation for refactoring media IOCTL handling to unify common parts.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/media-device.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/media-device.c b/drivers/media/media-device.c
> > index 1795abe..aedd64e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/media-device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/media-device.c
> > @@ -419,13 +419,41 @@ static long media_device_get_topology(struct media_device *mdev,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static long media_device_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> > - unsigned long arg)
> > +#define MEDIA_IOC(__cmd) \
> > + [_IOC_NR(MEDIA_IOC_##__cmd)] = { .cmd = MEDIA_IOC_##__cmd }
> > +
> > +/* the table is indexed by _IOC_NR(cmd) */
> > +struct media_ioctl_info {
> > + unsigned int cmd;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct media_ioctl_info ioctl_info[] = {
> > + MEDIA_IOC(DEVICE_INFO),
> > + MEDIA_IOC(ENUM_ENTITIES),
> > + MEDIA_IOC(ENUM_LINKS),
> > + MEDIA_IOC(SETUP_LINK),
> > + MEDIA_IOC(G_TOPOLOGY),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static inline long is_valid_ioctl(const struct media_ioctl_info *info,
> > + unsigned int cmd)
> > +{
> > + return (_IOC_NR(cmd) >= ARRAY_SIZE(ioctl_info)
> > + || info[_IOC_NR(cmd)].cmd != cmd) ? -ENOIOCTLCMD : 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static long __media_device_ioctl(
> > + struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, void __user *arg,
> > + const struct media_ioctl_info *info_array)
> > {
> > struct media_devnode *devnode = media_devnode_data(filp);
> > struct media_device *dev = devnode->media_dev;
> > long ret;
> >
> > + ret = is_valid_ioctl(info_array, cmd);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > mutex_lock(&dev->graph_mutex);
> > switch (cmd) {
> > case MEDIA_IOC_DEVICE_INFO:
> > @@ -461,6 +489,13 @@ static long media_device_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static long media_device_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> > + unsigned long arg)
> > +{
> > + return __media_device_ioctl(
> > + filp, cmd, (void __user *)arg, ioctl_info);
> > +}
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> >
> > struct media_links_enum32 {
> > @@ -491,6 +526,14 @@ static long media_device_enum_links32(struct media_device *mdev,
> >
> > #define MEDIA_IOC_ENUM_LINKS32 _IOWR('|', 0x02, struct media_links_enum32)
>
>
> Hmm...
>
> > +static const struct media_ioctl_info compat_ioctl_info[] = {
> > + MEDIA_IOC(DEVICE_INFO),
> > + MEDIA_IOC(ENUM_ENTITIES),
> > + MEDIA_IOC(ENUM_LINKS32),
> > + MEDIA_IOC(SETUP_LINK),
> > + MEDIA_IOC(G_TOPOLOGY),
> > +};
> > +
> > static long media_device_compat_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> > unsigned long arg)
> > {
> > @@ -498,6 +541,13 @@ static long media_device_compat_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> > struct media_device *dev = devnode->media_dev;
> > long ret;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * The number of supported IOCTLs is the same for both regular and
> > + * compat cases. Instead of passing the sizes around, ensure that
> > + * they match.
> > + */
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(ioctl_info) != ARRAY_SIZE(compat_ioctl_info));
> > +
> > switch (cmd) {
> > case MEDIA_IOC_ENUM_LINKS32:
> > mutex_lock(&dev->graph_mutex);
>
>
> Why do we need the above? The only ioctl that it is handled inside
> the compat logic is MEDIA_IOC_ENUM_LINKS. all the others fall back
> to the usual handler, and we don't intend to add any other new
> special case, as we're now using a different logic to handle 32 bit
> pointers passed to a 64 bit Kernel that it is compatible with both 32
> and 64 bits.
>
> So, we don't expect to have the V4L2 compat32 mess here, but, instead,
> to keep this untouched as we add more ioctl's.

That's a fair point. If we won't require compat handling for more IOCTLs,
we'll be fine with less generic compat handling.

I'll resend the set.

--
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@iki.fi XMPP: sailus@retiisi.org.uk