Re: [PATCH 2/4] binder: migrate ioctl to new PF_SPAM_DETECTION

Alice Ryhl
2024-04-22T08:53:09Z

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 1:49 AM Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:12:22AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com> writes:
> > > @@ -5553,7 +5553,8 @@ static long binder_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> > > goto err;
> > > }
> > > binder_inner_proc_lock(proc);
> > > - proc->oneway_spam_detection_enabled = (bool)enable;
> > > + proc->flags &= ~PF_SPAM_DETECTION;
> > > + proc->flags |= enable & PF_SPAM_DETECTION;
> >
> > The bitwise and in `enable & PF_SPAM_DETECTION` only works because
> > PF_SPAM_DETECTION happens to be equal to 1. This seems pretty fragile to
> > me. Would you be willing to do this instead?
> >
> > proc->flags &= ~PF_SPAM_DETECTION;
> > if (enable)
> > proc->flags |= PF_SPAM_DETECTION;
> >
>
> I don't think it is fragile since PF_SPAM_DETECTION is fixed. However,
> I agree the code is missing context about the flag being bit 0 and your
> version addresses this problem. So I'll take it for v2, thanks!

Thanks! By fragile I mean that it could result in future mistakes,
e.g. somebody could copy this code and use it elsewhere with a
different bit flag that might not be bit 0.

> > Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com> writes:
> > > - if (proc->oneway_spam_detection_enabled &&
> > > - w->type == BINDER_WORK_TRANSACTION_ONEWAY_SPAM_SUSPECT)
> > > + if (proc->flags & PF_SPAM_DETECTION &&
> > > + w->type == BINDER_WORK_TRANSACTION_ONEWAY_SPAM_SUSPECT)
> >
> > Maybe I am just not sufficiently familiar with C, but I had to look up
> > the operator precedence rules for this one. Could we add parenthesises
> > around `proc->flags & PF_SPAM_DETECTION`? Or even define a macro for it?
>
> I think this is fairly common in C but I can definitly add the extra
> paranthesis if it helps.

Yeah, makes sense. Thanks!

With the mentioned changes, you may add:
Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>

Alice