From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: more POLL... fun
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 06:38:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151204063825.GH22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151130030427.GY22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On cross-builds the __poll_t annotations had caught something interesting:
void spufs_mfc_callback(struct spu *spu)
{
....
mask = 0;
if (free_elements & 0xffff)
mask |= POLLOUT;
if (tagstatus & ctx->tagwait)
mask |= POLLIN;
kill_fasync(&ctx->mfc_fasync, SIGIO, mask);
....
}
That's arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c. WTF is kill_fasync()
getting as the last argument here? Valid values are
#define POLL_IN (__SI_POLL|1) /* data input available */
#define POLL_OUT (__SI_POLL|2) /* output buffers available */
#define POLL_MSG (__SI_POLL|3) /* input message available */
#define POLL_ERR (__SI_POLL|4) /* i/o error */
#define POLL_PRI (__SI_POLL|5) /* high priority input available */
#define POLL_HUP (__SI_POLL|6) /* device disconnected */
Use of POLLIN, POLLOUT, etc. here is wrong - kill_fasync() will step into
BUG_ON((reason & __SI_MASK) != __SI_POLL);
in send_sigio_to_task(). Other two callers of kill_fasync() in that file
are trivially fixed by switching to POLL_IN and POLL_OUT; with this one
I've no idea what had been intended.
What's more, I really wonder if it had _ever_ been tested - these kill_fasync()
calls had been introduced in
commit 8b3d6663c6217e4f50cc3720935a96da9b984117
Author: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue Nov 15 15:53:52 2005 -0500
[PATCH] spufs: cooperative scheduler support
more than 5 years after that BUG_ON() had been added - it goes back to
+ /* Make sure we are called with one of the POLL_*
+ reasons, otherwise we could leak kernel stack into
+ userspace. */
+ if ((reason & __SI_MASK) != __SI_POLL)
+ BUG();
in 2.3.99pre-10-3, on May 25 2000.
What the hell am I missing here? Has that code been DOA and never used by
anyone in all the decade it had been in mainline?
next parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-04 6:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20151127050026.GX22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
[not found] ` <20151127131843.0416fe2b@recife.lan>
[not found] ` <CA+55aFw-9Y6c-wgiXkyFuce7bqA-RQsRUuW6wC42ayoN4nVo6g@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20151130030427.GY22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
2015-12-04 6:38 ` Al Viro [this message]
2015-12-04 9:16 ` more POLL... fun Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-04 15:21 ` Al Viro
2015-12-04 17:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-04 17:30 ` Al Viro
2015-12-04 17:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-06 23:58 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-02-16 5:59 ` Michael Ellerman
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=20151204063825.GH22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).