On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:46:18 +0100
Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > +static char *strdup_from_user(const char __user *ustr, size_t max)
> > +{
> > + size_t len;
> > + char *str;
> > +
> > + len = strnlen_user(ustr, max);
> > + if (len > max)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENAMETOOLONG);
if (len >= max)
> > + str = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!str)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > + if (copy_from_user(str, ustr, len))
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> > +
> > + return str;
> > +}
Memory leak on the EFAULT path
If strnlen_user gets an exception, it'll return zero, causing a
zero-length kmalloc. Will kmalloc(0, ...) return NULL? If so, a bad
user pointer would result in -ENOMEM rather than -EFAULT.
> > + default:
> > + pr_debug("fsl-hv: unknown ioctl %u\n", cmd);
> > + ret = -ENOIOCTLCMD;
>
> -ENOTTY
>
> (-ENOIOCTLCMD is an internal indicator designed so driver layers can say
> 'dunno, try the next layer up')
There's a check for -ENOIOCTLCMD in vfs_ioctl() -- though it generates
-EINVAL rather than -ENOTTY (why?).
Using -ENOIOCTLCMD consistently would make it easier to refactor a
toplevel ioctl handler into a nested one, plus consistency is good in
general.
> > + * We use the same interrupt handler for all doorbells. Whenever a
> > doorbell
> > + * is rung, and we receive an interrupt, we just put the handle for that
> > + * doorbell (passed to us as *data) into all of the queues.
>
> I wonder if these should be presented as IRQs or whether that makes no
> sense ?
They are presented as IRQs. This driver registers the same handler for all
doorbell IRQs, and pipes the notifications up to userspace, but you could
also directly register a kernel handler for an individual doorbell IRQ.
> > +static irqreturn_t fsl_hv_shutdown_isr(int irq, void *data)
> > +{
> > + schedule_work(&power_off);
> > +
> > + /* We should never get here */
>
> Probably worth printing something if you do (panic(...) ?)
I don't think the comment is accurate. We've just scheduled the workqueue,
not waited for it to complete.
Timur, shouldn't this schedule orderly_poweroff rather than
kernel_power_off?
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
