Re: [Patch 2/3] firmware: dmi_scan: add SBMIOS entry and DMI tables

[Ivan.khoronzhuk]

Sorry, sent it from not original mail.

On 16.04.15 20:27, subscivan wrote:
> Jean,
>
> On 16.04.15 18:44, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi Ivan,
> >
> > Le Thursday 16 April 2015 Ã 15:56 +0300, Ivan.khoronzhuk a Ãcrit :
> > > On 16.04.15 12:52, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > On Thu,  2 Apr 2015 15:57:02 +0300, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
> > > > > +static BIN_ATTR(smbios_entry_point, S_IRUSR, raw_table_read, 
> > > > > NULL, 0);
> > > > This one could be world-readable as it contains no sensitive
> > > > information.
> > > It contains the address of DMI table containing sensitive information.
> > > Who knows which ways can be used to take it. Anyway, no see reasons 
> > > in this
> > > w/o DMI table. But if you insist I can do it "world-readable".
> > OK, you convinced me.
> >
> > > > > +struct bin_attribute bin_attr_dmi_table =
> > > > > +            __BIN_ATTR(DMI, S_IRUSR, raw_table_read, NULL, 0);
> > > > I do not understand why you don't use BIN_ATTR here too? I tried 
> > > > naming
> > > > the attribute bin_attr_DMI and it seems to work just fine, checkpatch
> > > > doesn't even complain!
> > > I dislike upper case in names, at least in such simple names.
> > > It makes me using bin_attr_DMI lower in the code. That's why.
> > > But if you like it, I will name it "bin_attr_DMI"
> > I don't like upper case in names either, but in this specific case, I'd
> > do it for consistency. As you wish though, I really only wanted to know
> > the reason.
> >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int __init dmi_init(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +    int ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +    struct kobject *tables_kobj = NULL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    if (!dmi_available) {
> > > > > +        ret = -ENOSYS;
> > > > > +        goto err;
> > > > > +    }
> > > > This is weird. Can this actually happen?
> > > >
> > > > We currently have two ways to enter this module: dmi_scan_machine(),
> > > > which is called by the architecture code, and dmi_init(), which is
> > > > called at subsys_initcall time. As far as I can see,
> > > > core/arch_initcalls are guaranteed to be always called before
> > > > subsys_initcalls. If we can rely on that, the test above is not 
> > > > needed.
> > > > If for any reason we can't, that means that dmi_init() should not be a
> > > > subsys_initcall, but should instead be called explicitly at the end of
> > > > dmi_scan_machine().
> > > We cannot be sure that firmware_kobj created at time of dmi_init().
> > > The sources don't oblige you to call it at core level,
> > > for instance like it was done for arm64. For x86, dmi_init() can be 
> > > called
> > > before firmware_kobj is created.
> > Looking at the code, it seems that firmware_kobj is created very, very
> > early in the boot process. In do_basic_setup(), you can see that
> > driver_init() (which in turn calls firmware_init(), creating
> > firmware_kobj) is called before do_initcalls(). So firmware_kobj must be
> > defined before dmi_scan_machine() or dmi_init() is called.
>
> No. Not must, rather should. See below.
>
> > Oh, and this wasn't even my point ;-) I'm fine with you checking if
> > firmware_kobj is defined. My question was about the dmi_available check
> > above. But that question was silly anyway, sorry. I confused
> > dmi_available with dmi_initialized. Checking for dmi_available is
> > perfectly reasonable, please scratch my objection.
> >
> > > And if I call it from dmi_init() I suppose
> > > I would face an error. As I can't call it in dmi_init I can't be 
> > > sure that
> > > DMI is available at all. So, no, we have to check dmi_available here 
> > > and
> > > call it at subsys layer, where it's supposed to be.
> > I can't parse that, I suspect you wrote dmi_init where you actually
> > meant dmi_scan_machine? Given how early firmware_kobj is created, I
> > think the code currently in dmi_init could in fact go at the end of
> > dmi_scan_machine.
>
> Actually, dmi_scan_machine can be called even earlier.
> As I've sad, for x86, it's called before firmware_kobj is created.
>
> kernel_start()
>     setup_arch()
>         dmi_scan_machine()
>
> And for firmware_init(), as you noticed already:
>
> start_kernel()
>     rest_init()
>         kernel_init()
>             kernel_init_freeable()
>                 do_basic_setup()
>                     driver_init()
>                         firmware_init()
>
> Pay attentions that setup_arch() is called much earlier than rest_init().
> So dmi_init couldn't in fact go at the end of dmi_scan_machine.
>
> > But it's not important for the time being, this can be
> > attempted later.
> >
> > > > > (...)
> > > > > +    kobject_del(dmi_kobj);
> > > > > +    kobject_put(dmi_kobj);
> > > > > +    dmi_kobj = NULL;
> > > > I'm wondering, wouldn't it make sense to keep dmi_kobj alive (with an
> > > > appropriate comment), so that dmi-sysfs has a chance to load? As it is
> > > > now, a bug or some unexpected behavior in this new code could cause a
> > > > regression for dmi-sysfs users. Just because I don't like dmi_sysfs
> > > > doesn't mean we can break it ;-)
> > > As I remember it was not so critical for you last time.
> > > "I don't care which way you choose". And I've explained my position.
> > > But it's not very hard to me to change it. Anyway patch requires 
> > > re-push.
> > You're right, I did not remember we had discussed this already,
> > sorry :-(
> >
> > Well, I still agree that it doesn't really matter, but of two acceptable
> > solutions for an event which will most likely never happen, why not go
> > for the ones with the fewer lines of code? ;-)
>
> Ok.

--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/