Re: [PATCH 1/2] Staging: fsl-mc: include: mc: Kernel type 's16' preferred over 'int16_t'

[Dan Carpenter]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 02:52:31PM +0000, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include/mc-bus.h b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include/mc-bus.h
> > > index e915574..c7cad87 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include/mc-bus.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fsl-mc/include/mc-bus.h
> > > @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ struct msi_domain_info;
> > >   */
> > >  struct fsl_mc_resource_pool {
> > >  	enum fsl_mc_pool_type type;
> > > -	int16_t max_count;
> > > -	int16_t free_count;
> > > +	s16 max_count;
> > 
> > My understanding is that this has to be signed because the design of
> > this driver is that we keep adding devices until the the counter
> > overflows.  After that there are a couple tests for
> > "if (WARN_ON(res_pool->max_count < 0)) " which prevent the driver from
> > working again.
> >
> > This all seems pretty horrible.
> 
> Can you elaborate?
> 
> The resource pools managed by this driver are populated by hardware objects
> discovered when the fsl-mc bus probes a DPRC/container.
> 
> The number of potential objects discovered of a given type is in the hundreds,
> so a signed 16-bit number is order of magnitudes larger than anything we will
> ever encounter.
> 
> Would you feel better about this if max_count was an int?

Yeah.

> 
> The max_count reflects the total number of objects discovered.  If that is
> exceeded we display a warning, because something is horribly wrong.  Nothing
> stops working, the allocator simply refuses to add anything else to the
> free list.

I didn't look at this carefully...  Anyway we can't remove devices
either.  If we just had an upper bound instead of overflowing the s16
then we could still remove devices.

> 
> The only reason max_count is there at all is as an internal check against
> bugs and resource leaks.  If the driver is being removed and a resource
> pool is being freed, max_count must be zero...i.e. all objects should have
> been removed.  If not, there is a leak somewhere.  So, it's a sanity check.
> 

Just use a normal upper bound with a #define instead of an magic number
hidden and then disguised as an integer overflow.

regards,
dan carpenter