[U-Boot] [PATCH] Loop block device for sandbox

Pavel Herrmann
2012-08-31T09:09:04Z

On Thursday 30 August 2012 23:53:58 Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Pavel Herrmann,
>
> > On Thursday 30 of August 2012 20:45:13 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > Dear Pavel Herrmann,
> > >
> > > > On Thursday 30 of August 2012 00:18:18 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > ...snip...
> > > >
> > > > > > +extern block_dev_desc_t sata_dev_desc[];
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +int init_sata(int dev)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + block_dev_desc_t *pdev = &(sata_dev_desc[dev]);
> > > > >
> > > > > Superfluous braces ... Actually, I think sata_dev_desc as it would
> > > > > work very well too.
> > > >
> > > > Straight copy from dwc_ahsata.c, makes it more readable thought, as
> > > > the
> > > > order of operation is not very intuitive IMHO.
> > >
> > > sata_dev_desc + dev ?
> >
> > even less intuitive
>
> Why so?

because of the silent "*sizeof(sata_dev_desc)".
I know this is standardized in C (so is the order of operands), but doing "+"
on non-numbers is a little too C++ for me. I know that generated code will be
eactly the same in all cases.

> > > > > > +lbaint_t sata_read(int dev, lbaint_t start, lbaint_t blkcnt, void
> > > > > > *buffer)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + block_dev_desc_t *pdev = &(sata_dev_desc[dev]);
> > > > > > + int fd = (long) pdev->priv;
> > > > >
> > > > > If pdev is NULL, this will crash
> > > >
> > > > well, it isn't, at least not from the command - thats why you define
> > > > the number of ports in advance, you get "dev" already range-checked
> > >
> > > Range check is fine, but will pdev be inited? It's a pointer from some
> > > array.
> >
> > init_sata is called first, so pdev is inited (see cmd_sata.c)
>
> Unless it fails. Then what ?

the only way init can "fail" is if it gets a wrong device number (which should
not happen), or if it cannot open the file, in which case it still sets pdev as
-1.

> > > > in the second, the I/O op will harmlessly
> > > > fail as well
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > because then the fd is -1, and read/write will do the right thing there
> > (nothing, return -1 and set errno to EBADF)
>
> From write(2)
>
> -->8--
>
> RETURN VALUE
> On success, the number of bytes written is returned (zero indicates
> nothing was written). On error, -1 is returned,
> and errno is set appropriately.
>
> If count is zero and fd refers to a regular file, then write() may
> return a failure status if one of the errors below
> is detected. If no errors are detected, 0 will be returned without
> causing any other effect. If count is zero and fd
> refers to a file other than a regular file, the results are not
> specified.
>
> --8<--
>
> I don't see the case where fd = -1 handled there at all. The last sentence
> resembles it, but in that case, the behavior is undefined. Can you elaborate
> please?

RETURN VALUE
...
On error, -1 is returned, and errno is set appropriately.
...
ERRORS
...
EBADF fd is not a valid file descriptor or is not open for writing.
...
-1 is definitely not a valid file descriptor.
this point is moot, as checking success of lseek (because of pipes/sockets)
will filter out invalid fd as well

> > > > > > + if (namelen > 20)
> > > > > > + namelen = 20;
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you trim down the string, won't simple strdup() work?
> > > >
> > > > nah, the destination is char[21], as it is the exact length of
> > > > corresponding field in ATA identify response (one more for a 0 at the
> > > > end)
> > >
> > > I see, is it a full path ? If so, it might be a better idea to use the
> > > filename itself instead of the whole path. So you'd prevent names like
> > > "~/../foo/../.././bar.img" .
> >
> > yes, i was thinking about "...${last 17 bytes of the name}" if the name
> > was
> > longer, but this proved significantly simpler for demonstrating the
> > general
> > idea.
>
> I think the FS code might contain some function to fixup the path and get
> filename from path.

that still wouldn't solve the problem, flename can still be over 20 bytes long

> > > > > > + memcpy(pdev->product, filenames[dev], namelen);
> > > > > > + pdev->product[20] = 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (fd != -1) {
> > > > >
> > > > > And if "fd" is -1 ?
> > > >
> > > > then all defaults to an invalid device, because you failed to open the
> > > > file, for whatever the reason.
> > >
> > > At least the printf below will choke, since pdev->lba is uninited
> >
> > not the case. sata_dev_desc is inited in cmd_sata.c, and therefore by not
> > doing anything we get an empty device
>
> I see ... shall we also move all these memcpy() calls in to if (fd != -1)
> then?

I'd like to know that the device is a loopback, and what filename, not just
that it failed to init

Pavel Herrmann