lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/1] s390/cio: make ccw_device_dma_* more robust
From


On 10/11/21 16:33, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11 2021, Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/21 1:59 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c b/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>>> index 0fe7b2f2e7f5..c533d1dadc6b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/device_ops.c
>>> @@ -825,13 +825,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ccw_device_get_chid);
>>> */
>>> void *ccw_device_dma_zalloc(struct ccw_device *cdev, size_t size)
>>> {
>>> - return cio_gp_dma_zalloc(cdev->private->dma_pool, &cdev->dev, size);
>>> + void *addr;
>>> +
>>> + if (!get_device(&cdev->dev))
>>> + return NULL;
>>> + addr = cio_gp_dma_zalloc(cdev->private->dma_pool, &cdev->dev, size);
>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(addr))
>>
>> I can be wrong but it seems that only dma_alloc_coherent() used in
>> cio_gp_dma_zalloc() report an error but the error is ignored and used as
>> a valid pointer.
>
> Hm, I thought dma_alloc_coherent() returned either NULL or a valid
> address?

hum, my bad, checked the wrong function, should have use my glasses or
connect my brain.

>
>>
>> So shouldn't we modify this function and just test for a NULL address here?
>
> If I read cio_gp_dma_zalloc() correctly, we either get NULL or a valid
> address, so yes.
>

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-12 16:12    [W:0.065 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site