2023-01-18 07:26:38

by Andrew Donnellan

Subject: [PATCH v3 02/24] powerpc/secvar: WARN_ON_ONCE() if multiple secvar ops are set

From: Russell Currey <[email protected]>

The secvar code only supports one consumer at a time.

Multiple consumers aren't possible at this point in time, but we'd want
it to be obvious if it ever could happen.

Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Donnellan <[email protected]>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c
index 6a29777d6a2d..aa1b2adc2710 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c
@@ -8,10 +8,12 @@

#include <linux/cache.h>
#include <asm/secvar.h>
+#include <asm/bug.h>

-const struct secvar_operations *secvar_ops __ro_after_init;
+const struct secvar_operations *secvar_ops __ro_after_init = NULL;

void set_secvar_ops(const struct secvar_operations *ops)
{
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(secvar_ops);
secvar_ops = ops;
}
--
2.39.0

2023-01-19 01:14:46

by Nicholas Piggin

Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/24] powerpc/secvar: WARN_ON_ONCE() if multiple secvar ops are set

On Wed Jan 18, 2023 at 4:10 PM AEST, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> From: Russell Currey <[email protected]>
>
> The secvar code only supports one consumer at a time.
>
> Multiple consumers aren't possible at this point in time, but we'd want
> it to be obvious if it ever could happen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Russell Currey <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Donnellan <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c
> index 6a29777d6a2d..aa1b2adc2710 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/secvar-ops.c
> @@ -8,10 +8,12 @@
>
> #include <linux/cache.h>
> #include <asm/secvar.h>
> +#include <asm/bug.h>
>
> -const struct secvar_operations *secvar_ops __ro_after_init;
> +const struct secvar_operations *secvar_ops __ro_after_init = NULL;
>
> void set_secvar_ops(const struct secvar_operations *ops)
> {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(secvar_ops);
> secvar_ops = ops;

You could make it return error here and two line patch in the caller to
handle the error and then things wouldn't get corrupted.

Thanks,
Nick