Re: [patch 03/11] input: new force feedback interface

Andrew Morton
2006-05-18T05:20:40Z

Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Implement a new force feedback interface, in which all non-driver-specific
> operations are separated to a common module. This module handles effect type
> validations, effect timers, locking, etc.
>
> As a result, support is added for gain and envelope for memoryless devices,
> periodic => rumble conversion for memoryless devices and rumble => periodic
> conversion for devices with periodic support instead of rumble support. Also
> the effect memory of devices is not emptied if the root user opens and closes
> the device while another user is using effects. This module also obsoletes
> some flawed locking and timer code in few ff drivers.
>
> The module is named ff-effects. If INPUT_FF_EFFECTS is enabled, the force
> feedback drivers and interfaces (evdev) will be depending on it.
>
> Userspace interface is left unaltered.
>

Nice-looking patches.

>
> +#define spin_ff_cond_lock(_ff, _flags) \
> + do { \
> + if (!_ff->driver->playback) \
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&_ff->atomiclock, _flags); \
> + } while (0);
> +
> +#define spin_ff_cond_unlock(_ff, _flags) \
> + do { \
> + if (!_ff->driver->playback) \
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&_ff->atomiclock, _flags); \
> + } while (0);

Making these static inline functions would deuglify them a bit.

> +static int input_ff_effect_access(struct input_dev *dev, int id, int override)
> +{
> + struct ff_device *ff = dev->ff;
> + if (id < dev->ff_effects_max && id >= 0 && test_bit(FF_EFFECT_USED, ff->effects[id].flags))

Kernel does have an 80-columns rule, but input seems to have always spurned it.

> +static int input_ff_envelope_time(struct ff_effect_status *effect, struct ff_envelope *envelope, unsigned long *event_time)
> +{
> + unsigned long fade_start;
> + if (!envelope)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (envelope->attack_length && time_after(effect->play_at + msecs_to_jiffies(envelope->attack_length), effect->adj_at)) {

Try using an 80-column wondow for a while ;)

> + return value;
> + }
> +
> + difference = abs(value) - envelope_level;
> +
> + debug("difference = %d", difference);
> + debug("time_from_level = 0x%x", time_from_level);
> + debug("time_of_envelope = 0x%x", time_of_envelope);
> + if (difference < 0)
> + difference = -((-difference) * time_from_level / time_of_envelope);
> + else
> + difference = difference * time_from_level / time_of_envelope;

You've checked there's no possibility of divide-by-zero here?

> +
> +static int input_ff_safe_sum(int a, int b, int limit) {

The opening brace goes in column zero, please.

> + int c;
> + if (!a)
> + return b;
> + c = a + b;
> + if (c > limit)
> + return limit;
> + return c;
> +}
> +
> +static s8 input_ff_s8_sum(int a, int b) {

dittoes.

> + int c;
> + c = input_ff_safe_sum(a, b, 0x7f);
> + if (c < -0x80)
> + return -0x80;
> + return c;
> +}
>
> ...
>
> +static void input_ff_timer(unsigned long timer_data)
> +{
> + struct input_dev *dev = (struct input_dev *) timer_data;
> + struct ff_device *ff = dev->ff;
> + struct ff_effect effect;
> + int i;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int effects_pending;
> + unsigned long effect_handled[NBITS(FF_EFFECTS_MAX)];

DECLARE_BITMAP would be more usual. (Yes, it should have been called
DEFINE_BITMAP).

> + int effect_type;
> + int safety;
> +
> + debug("timer: updating effects");
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ff->atomiclock, flags);
> +
> + memset(effect_handled, 0, sizeof(effect_handled));

You could take the lock after the memset.

> +int input_ff_erase(struct input_dev *dev, int id)
> +{
> + struct ff_device *ff;
> + unsigned long flags = 0;
> + int ret;
> + if (!test_bit(EV_FF, dev->evbit))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + mutex_lock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + ff = dev->ff;
> + if (!ff) {
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> + spin_ff_cond_lock(ff, flags);
> + ret = _input_ff_erase(dev, id, current->pid == 0);
> + spin_ff_cond_unlock(ff, flags);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return ret;
> +}

Perhaps you meant `current->uid == 0' here. There's no way in which pid
0 will call this code.

What's happening here anyway? Why does this code need to know about pids?

Checking for uid==0 woud be a fishy thing to do as well.

> +static int input_ff_flush(struct input_dev *dev, struct file *file)
> +{
> + struct ff_device *ff;
> + unsigned long flags = 0;
> + int i;
> + debug("flushing now");
> + mutex_lock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + ff = dev->ff;
> + if (!ff) {
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> + spin_ff_cond_lock(ff, flags);
> + for (i = 0; i < dev->ff_effects_max; i++) {
> + _input_ff_erase(dev, i, 0);
> + }

Unneeded braces.

> + spin_ff_cond_unlock(ff, flags);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> + ff->effects[id].flags[0] = 0;
> + ff->effects[id].effect = *effect;
> +
> + if (ff->driver->playback) {
> + if (!test_bit(effect->type, ff->flags))
> + input_ff_convert_effect(dev, effect);
> + ret = ff->driver->upload(dev, effect, NULL);
> + if (!ret)
> + set_bit(FF_EFFECT_USED, ff->effects[id].flags);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + set_bit(FF_EFFECT_USED, ff->effects[id].flags);
> +
> + } else {
> + id = effect->id;
> +
> + ret = input_ff_effect_access(dev, id, 1);
> + if (ret) {
> + spin_ff_cond_unlock(ff, flags);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (effect->type != ff->effects[id].effect.type ||
> + (effect->type == FF_PERIODIC && effect->u.periodic.waveform !=
> + ff->effects[id].effect.u.periodic.waveform)) {
> + spin_ff_cond_unlock(ff, flags);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (ff->driver->playback) {
> + if (!test_bit(effect->type, ff->flags))
> + input_ff_convert_effect(dev, effect);
> + ret = ff->driver->upload(dev, effect, &ff->effects[id].effect);
> + ff->effects[id].effect = *effect;
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return ret;

I think we're missing a spin_ff_cond_unlock() here?

> + }
> + ff->effects[id].effect = *effect;
> + clear_bit(FF_EFFECT_PLAYING, ff->effects[id].flags);
> +
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ff->atomiclock, flags);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return ret;
> +}

And here we have spin_unlock_irqrestore() instead of spin_ff_cond_unlock().

It would be best to convert this function to have a single return point.
That tends to prevent problems like this from happening, and from creeping
in later on.

> +int input_ff_allocate(struct input_dev *dev)
> +{
> + debug("allocating device");
> + mutex_lock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + if (dev->ff)
> + printk(KERN_ERR "ff-effects: allocating to non-NULL pointer\n");
> + dev->ff = kzalloc(sizeof(*dev->ff), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!dev->ff) {
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> + spin_lock_init(&dev->ff->atomiclock);
> + init_timer(&dev->ff->timer);
> + dev->ff->timer.function = input_ff_timer;
> + dev->ff->timer.data = (unsigned long) dev;
> + dev->ff->event = input_ff_event;

setup_timer()

> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + debug("ff allocated");
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
>
> ...
>
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc4-git1/drivers/input/Kconfig
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc4-git1.orig/drivers/input/Kconfig 2006-03-20 07:53:29.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc4-git1/drivers/input/Kconfig 2006-05-14 02:28:42.000000000 +0300
> @@ -24,6 +24,14 @@ config INPUT
>
> if INPUT
>
> +config INPUT_FF_EFFECTS
> + tristate "Force feedback effects"
> + help
> + Say Y here if you want to be able to play force feedback effects.
> +
> + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
> + module will be called ff-effects.

hm. I'd have expected more dependencies than this.

> comment "Userland interfaces"
>
> config INPUT_MOUSEDEV
> @@ -110,6 +118,7 @@ config INPUT_TSDEV_SCREEN_Y
>
> config INPUT_EVDEV
> tristate "Event interface"
> + depends on INPUT_FF_EFFECTS || INPUT_FF_EFFECTS=n

Isn't that always true?

> +
> +struct ff_effect_status {
> + pid_t owner;

This code is almost devoid of comments. Those which it does have tend to
cover little low-level implementation details. But it's the *big* things
which a reader is not able to learn from the implementation, and which
should be commented. Like: why on earth does this code need to know about
pids?

> +#if defined(CONFIG_INPUT_FF_EFFECTS_MODULE) || defined(CONFIG_INPUT_FF_EFFECTS)

No, we shouldn't use CONFIG_FOO_MODULE. We just don't know at compile-time
whether the user will later compile and insert a particular module.

> + mutex_lock(&dev->ff_lock);
> + del_timer_sync(&ff->timer);
> + dev->flush = NULL;
> + dev->ff = NULL;
> + kfree(ff);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->ff_lock);

The kfree can be moved outside the lock.