Re: [PATCH v2 next-next] net: hns: enet specifies a reference to dsaf

On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 14:49 +0800, Yankejian (Hackim Yim) wrote:

quoted

quoted

+

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	snprintf(ae_dev->name, AE_NAME_SIZE, "%s%d",
DSAF_DEVICE_NAME,
+		 (int)atomic_inc_return(&id));

If you bind/unbind device enough times you may get an overflow and
end
up with name of existing device (if you have 1+ of them in the
system).

To avoid such situation better to use IDA/IDR framework.

Hi, Andy
Thanks again for your suggestion.
It seems that using IDA/IDR framework is better, but all of the
functions must be serialized by lock.

AFAIR it's designed in a way you don't need to do any additional
locking or synchronization.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref]
Intel Finland Oy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On 2016/1/20 17:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 14:49 +0800, Yankejian (Hackim Yim) wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	snprintf(ae_dev->name, AE_NAME_SIZE, "%s%d",
DSAF_DEVICE_NAME,
+		 (int)atomic_inc_return(&id));

If you bind/unbind device enough times you may get an overflow and
end
up with name of existing device (if you have 1+ of them in the
system).

To avoid such situation better to use IDA/IDR framework.

Hi, Andy
Thanks again for your suggestion.
It seems that using IDA/IDR framework is better, but all of the
functions must be serialized by lock.

AFAIR it's designed in a way you don't need to do any additional
locking or synchronization.

really? if so, that is great.
could you sent me an example.
thanks very much. Andy.

Best Regards,
Kejian Yan