[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0aea6c90-ba94-708c-5cad-836c50dadfe6@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:10:22 -0700
From: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To: Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4] gpio: Remove VLA from gpiolib
On 04/12/2018 05:39 PM, Phil Reid wrote:
> On 12/04/2018 16:38, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The new challenge is to remove VLAs from the kernel
>>> (see https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621) to eventually
>>> turn on -Wvla.
>>>
>>> Using a kmalloc array is the easy way to fix this but kmalloc is still
>>> more expensive than stack allocation. Introduce a fast path with a
>>> fixed size stack array to cover most chip with gpios below some fixed
>>> amount. The slow path dynamically allocates an array to cover those
>>> chips with a large number of gpios.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-and-tested-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> v4: Changed some local variables to avoid coccinelle warnings. Added a
>>> warning if the number of GPIOs exceeds the current fast path define.
>>>
>>> Lukas, I kept your Tested-by because the changes were pretty minimal.
>>> Let me know if you want to run the tests again.
>>
>> This patch is starting to look really good.
>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Number of GPIOs to use for the fast path in set array
>>> + */
>>> +#define FASTPATH_NGPIO 256
>>
>> There is still some comment about this.
>>
>> And now that I am also tryint to think I wonder about it, we
>> have a global ARCH_NR_GPIOS that is typically 512.
>> Some archs set it up.
>>
>> This define is something of an abomination, in the ARM
>> case it comes from arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h
>> where #define ARCH_NR_GPIOS CONFIG_ARCH_NR_GPIO
>> where the latter is a Kconfig option that is mostly 512 for
>> most ARM systems.
>>
>> Well, ARM looks like this:
>>
>> config ARCH_NR_GPIO
>> int
>> default 2048 if ARCH_SOCFPGA
>> default 1024 if ARCH_BRCMSTB || ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA || \
>> ARCH_ZYNQ
>> default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 || \
>> SOC_DRA7XX || ARCH_S3C24XX || ARCH_S3C64XX || ARCH_S5PV210
>> default 416 if ARCH_SUNXI
>> default 392 if ARCH_U8500
>> default 352 if ARCH_VT8500
>> default 288 if ARCH_ROCKCHIP
>> default 264 if MACH_H4700
>> default 0
>> help
>> Maximum number of GPIOs in the system.
>>
>> If unsure, leave the default value.
>>
>> So if FASTPATH_NGPIO should be anything else than
>> ARCH_NR_GPIO this has to be established somewhere
>> as a floor or half or something, but I would just set it as
>> the same as ARCH_NR_GPIOS...
>>
>> The main reason this define exist is for this function
>> from <linux/gpio/consumer.h>:
>>
>> /* Convert between the old gpio_ and new gpiod_ interfaces */
>> struct gpio_desc *gpio_to_desc(unsigned gpio);
>>
>> Nowadays that fact is a bit obscured since the variable is
>> only used when assigning the base (in the global GPIO
>> number space, which is what we want to get rid of but
>> sigh) in gpiochip_find_base() where it attempts to place
>> a newly allocated gpiochip in the higher region of this
>> numberspace since the embedded SoC GPIO base tends
>> to be 0, on old platforms.
>>
>> So I don't know about this.
>>
>> Can't we just use ARCH_NR_GPIOS?
>>
>> Very few systems have more than 512 assigned global
>> GPIO numbers and those are FPGA experimental machines.
>>
>> In the long run obviously I want to get rid of these defines
>> altogether and only allocate GPIO descriptos dynamically
>> so as you see I am reluctant to add new numberspace weirdness
>> around here.
> Isn't that for total GPIO's in the system?
> And the arrays just need to cater for max per chip?
> From what I can understand of the code which is admittedly limited.
>
>
Yeah the switch back to 256 was a mistake on my end (I think I
grabbed an incorrect version for my base). ARCH_NR_GPIOs
is the total number in the system which may be multiple
chips so yes we would be possibly allocating more space
than necessary.
unsigned long fastpath[2 * BITS_TO_LONGS(FASTPATH_NGPIO)]
unsigned long fastpath[2 * BITS_TO_LONGS(512)]
unsigned long fastpath[2 * DIV_ROUND_UP(512, 8 * sizeof(long))]
so we end up with 128 bytes on the stack total assuming I
can do math correctly. I think this a fairly reasonable
amount though, even if we are over-estimating if there are
multiple chips.
Thanks,
Laura
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
