Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] iio: adc: adi-axi-adc: add support for AXI ADC IP core

[Ardelean, Alexandru]

On Sun, 2020-03-22 at 09:16 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 12:45:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > +Cc Kees (see below about allocation size checks)
> > 
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:36 AM Ardelean, Alexandru
> > <alexandru.Ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2020-03-21 at 23:38 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:55 AM Alexandru Ardelean
> > > > <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > +static struct adi_axi_adc_conv *adi_axi_adc_conv_register(struct
> > > > > device
> > > > > *dev,
> > > > > +                                                         int
> > > > > sizeof_priv)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       struct adi_axi_adc_client *cl;
> > > > > +       size_t alloc_size;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       alloc_size = sizeof(struct adi_axi_adc_client);
> > > > > +       if (sizeof_priv) {
> > > > > +               alloc_size = ALIGN(alloc_size, IIO_ALIGN);
> > > > > +               alloc_size += sizeof_priv;
> > > > > +       }
> > > > > +       alloc_size += IIO_ALIGN - 1;
> > > > 
> > > > Have you looked at linux/overflow.h?
> > > 
> > > i did now;
> > > any hints where i should look closer?
> > 
> > It seems it lacks of this kind of allocation size checks... Perhaps add one?
> > Kees, what do you think?
> > 
> > > > > +       cl = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > +       if (!cl)
> > > > > +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> 
> My head hurts trying to read this! ;) Okay, so the base size is
> sizeof(struct adi_axi_adc_client). But if sizeof_priv is non-zero
> (this arg should be size_t not int), then we need to make the struct
> size ALIGNed? And then what is the "+= IIO_ALIGN - 1" for?
> 
> It's not clear to me what the expect alignment/padding is here.
> 
> I would probably construct this as:
> 
> 	sizeof_self = sizeof(struct adi_axi_adc_client);
> 	if (sizeof_priv)
> 		sizeof_self = ALIGN(sizeof_self, IIO_ALIGN);
> 	if (check_add_overflow(sizeof_self, sizeof_priv, &sizeof_alloc))
> 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> 	if (check_add_overflow(sizeof_alloc, IIO_ALIGN - 1, &sizeof_alloc))
> 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);

Ok, but the question is: shouldn't this be done in kmalloc()/kzalloc?
Why do it in each driver?
I don't see this done in many drivers.

> 
> But I don't understand the "IIO_ALIGN - 1" part, so I assume this could
> be shortened with better use of ALIGN()?
> 
> Also, this feels like a weird driver allocation overall:
> 
> +	struct adi_axi_adc_conv **ptr, *conv;
> +
> +	ptr = devres_alloc(devm_adi_axi_adc_conv_release, sizeof(*ptr),
> +			   GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!ptr)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> +	conv = adi_axi_adc_conv_register(dev, sizeof_priv);
> 
> devres_alloc() allocates storage for a _single pointer_. :P That's not
> useful for resource tracking. Why is devres_alloc() being called here
> and not down in adi_axi_adc_conv_register() and just passing the pointer
> back up?
>