[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 4/5] drm: Add decoding of i915 ioctls

[Patrik Jakobsson]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 03:36:09AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:52:47PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote:
> [...]
> > --- a/drm.c
> > +++ b/drm.c
> > @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@
> >  
> >  #define DRM_MAX_NAME_LEN 128
> >  
> > +extern int drm_i915_decode_number(struct tcb *tcp, unsigned int arg);
> 
> Please rename "arg" to "code", and ...
> 
> > +extern int drm_i915_ioctl(struct tcb *tcp, const unsigned int code, long arg);
> 
> ... move both declarations to defs.h to make them visible also
> in the file where these functions are defined.
> 
> [...]
> > +static int i915_setparam(struct tcb *tcp, const unsigned int code, long arg)
> > +{
> > +	struct drm_i915_setparam param;
> > +
> > +	if (entering(tcp)) {
> > +		if (umove(tcp, arg, &param))
> > +			return 0;
> > +
> > +		tprints(", {param=");
> > +		printxval(drm_i915_setparams, param.param, "I915_PARAM_???");
> > +		tprintf(", value=%d}", param.value);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 1;
> > +}
> 
> In this and most of other parsers of _IOC_WRITE ioctls added by this and
> the next patches, any error in parser that leads to "return 0" will result
> to disabled "arg" decoding, including the fallback decoding performed by
> sys_ioctl.
> 
> Maybe it's time to deal with this issue in a more generic way.
> 

Yes, I'm thinking SYS_FUNC(ioctl) could be improved. But on the other hand how
likely is it that we fail in umove and what chance do we have to recover from
that anyway? All I can think of is OOM.

> 
> -- 
> ldv