| Message ID | 20200111145703.533809-6-hdegoede@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Deferred, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | efi/firmware/platform-x86: Add EFI embedded fw support | expand |
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 03:56:58PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Add support for testing firmware_request_platform through a new > trigger_request_platform trigger. > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > --- > Changes in v11: > - Drop a few empty lines which were accidentally introduced But you didn't address my other feedback. > --- a/lib/test_firmware.c > +++ b/lib/test_firmware.c > @@ -507,6 +508,61 @@ static ssize_t trigger_request_store(struct device *dev, > } > static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(trigger_request); > > +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_EMBEDDED_FIRMWARE > +static ssize_t trigger_request_platform_store(struct device *dev, > + struct device_attribute *attr, > + const char *buf, size_t count) > +{ > + static const u8 test_data[] = { > + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, > + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07, 0x08, > + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30, 0x40, > + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x50, 0x60, 0x70, 0x80 > + }; > + struct efi_embedded_fw fw; > + int rc; > + char *name; > + > + name = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!name) > + return -ENOSPC; > + > + pr_info("inserting test platform fw '%s'\n", name); > + fw.name = name; > + fw.data = (void *)test_data; > + fw.length = sizeof(test_data); > + list_add(&fw.list, &efi_embedded_fw_list); > + > + pr_info("loading '%s'\n", name); > + I mentioned this in my last review, and it seems you forgot to address this. But now some more feedback: These two: > + mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex); > + release_firmware(test_firmware); You are doing this because this is a test, but a typical driver will do this after, and we don't loose anything in doing this after. Can you move the mutex lock and assign the pointer to a temporary used pointer for the call, *after* your call. But since your test is not using any interfaces to query information about the firmware, and you are just doing the test in C code right away, instead of say, using a trigger for later use in userspace, you can just do away with the mutex lock and make the call use its own pointer: rc = firmware_request_platform(&tmp_test_firmware, name, dev); if (rc) { ... } /* Your test branch code goes here */ I see no reason why you use the test_firmware pointer. > + test_firmware = NULL; > + rc = firmware_request_platform(&test_firmware, name, dev); > + if (rc) { > + pr_info("load of '%s' failed: %d\n", name, rc); > + goto out; > + } > + if (test_firmware->size != sizeof(test_data) || > + memcmp(test_firmware->data, test_data, sizeof(test_data)) != 0) { > + pr_info("firmware contents mismatch for '%s'\n", name); > + rc = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + pr_info("loaded: %zu\n", test_firmware->size); > + rc = count; > + > +out: > + mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex); > + > + list_del(&fw.list); > + kfree(name); > + > + return rc; > +}
Hi, On 13-01-2020 15:53, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 03:56:58PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Add support for testing firmware_request_platform through a new >> trigger_request_platform trigger. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> >> --- >> Changes in v11: >> - Drop a few empty lines which were accidentally introduced > > But you didn't address my other feedback. > >> --- a/lib/test_firmware.c >> +++ b/lib/test_firmware.c >> @@ -507,6 +508,61 @@ static ssize_t trigger_request_store(struct device *dev, >> } >> static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(trigger_request); >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_EMBEDDED_FIRMWARE >> +static ssize_t trigger_request_platform_store(struct device *dev, >> + struct device_attribute *attr, >> + const char *buf, size_t count) >> +{ >> + static const u8 test_data[] = { >> + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, >> + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07, 0x08, >> + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30, 0x40, >> + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x50, 0x60, 0x70, 0x80 >> + }; >> + struct efi_embedded_fw fw; >> + int rc; >> + char *name; >> + >> + name = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!name) >> + return -ENOSPC; >> + >> + pr_info("inserting test platform fw '%s'\n", name); >> + fw.name = name; >> + fw.data = (void *)test_data; >> + fw.length = sizeof(test_data); >> + list_add(&fw.list, &efi_embedded_fw_list); >> + >> + pr_info("loading '%s'\n", name); >> + > > I mentioned this in my last review, and it seems you forgot to address > this. I did address this in my reply to your review, as explained there, the check + free on test_firmware before calling firmware_request_platform() is necessary because test_firmware may be non NULL when entering the function (continued below) ... > But now some more feedback: > > These two: > >> + mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex); >> + release_firmware(test_firmware); > > You are doing this because this is a test, but a typical driver will > do this after, and we don't loose anything in doing this after. Can you > move the mutex lock and assign the pointer to a temporary used pointer > for the call, *after* your call. > > But since your test is not using any interfaces to query information > about the firmware, and you are just doing the test in C code right > away, instead of say, using a trigger for later use in userspace, > you can just do away with the mutex lock and make the call use its > own pointer: > > rc = firmware_request_platform(&tmp_test_firmware, name, dev); > if (rc) { > ... > } > /* Your test branch code goes here */ > > I see no reason why you use the test_firmware pointer. I agree that using a private/local firmware pointer instead of test_firmware and dropping the mutex calls is better. I will make this change for v12 of this series. I'll send out a v12 once the remarks from Andy Lutomirski's have also been discussed. Regards, Hans > >> + test_firmware = NULL; >> + rc = firmware_request_platform(&test_firmware, name, dev); >> + if (rc) { >> + pr_info("load of '%s' failed: %d\n", name, rc); >> + goto out; >> + } >> + if (test_firmware->size != sizeof(test_data) || >> + memcmp(test_firmware->data, test_data, sizeof(test_data)) != 0) { >> + pr_info("firmware contents mismatch for '%s'\n", name); >> + rc = -EINVAL; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + pr_info("loaded: %zu\n", test_firmware->size); >> + rc = count; >> + >> +out: >> + mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex); >> + >> + list_del(&fw.list); >> + kfree(name); >> + >> + return rc; >> +} >
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 04:22:36PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > test_firmware and dropping the mutex calls is better. I will make > this change for v12 of this series. > > I'll send out a v12 once the remarks from Andy Lutomirski's > have also been discussed. Sure, just think twice about loosing the ability to access the test_firmware pointer from userspace. If you can find value in extending your tests then keep it, otherwise if its just to do the actual test in C in the call itself, it makes sense to avoid it for that test case. Luis
diff --git a/lib/test_firmware.c b/lib/test_firmware.c index 251213c872b5..6042840f861c 100644 --- a/lib/test_firmware.c +++ b/lib/test_firmware.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include <linux/delay.h> #include <linux/kthread.h> #include <linux/vmalloc.h> +#include <linux/efi_embedded_fw.h> #define TEST_FIRMWARE_NAME "test-firmware.bin" #define TEST_FIRMWARE_NUM_REQS 4 @@ -507,6 +508,61 @@ static ssize_t trigger_request_store(struct device *dev, } static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(trigger_request); +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_EMBEDDED_FIRMWARE +static ssize_t trigger_request_platform_store(struct device *dev, + struct device_attribute *attr, + const char *buf, size_t count) +{ + static const u8 test_data[] = { + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07, 0x08, + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30, 0x40, + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x50, 0x60, 0x70, 0x80 + }; + struct efi_embedded_fw fw; + int rc; + char *name; + + name = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL); + if (!name) + return -ENOSPC; + + pr_info("inserting test platform fw '%s'\n", name); + fw.name = name; + fw.data = (void *)test_data; + fw.length = sizeof(test_data); + list_add(&fw.list, &efi_embedded_fw_list); + + pr_info("loading '%s'\n", name); + + mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex); + release_firmware(test_firmware); + test_firmware = NULL; + rc = firmware_request_platform(&test_firmware, name, dev); + if (rc) { + pr_info("load of '%s' failed: %d\n", name, rc); + goto out; + } + if (test_firmware->size != sizeof(test_data) || + memcmp(test_firmware->data, test_data, sizeof(test_data)) != 0) { + pr_info("firmware contents mismatch for '%s'\n", name); + rc = -EINVAL; + goto out; + } + pr_info("loaded: %zu\n", test_firmware->size); + rc = count; + +out: + mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex); + + list_del(&fw.list); + kfree(name); + + return rc; +} +static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(trigger_request_platform); +#endif + static DECLARE_COMPLETION(async_fw_done); static void trigger_async_request_cb(const struct firmware *fw, void *context) @@ -903,6 +959,9 @@ static struct attribute *test_dev_attrs[] = { TEST_FW_DEV_ATTR(trigger_request), TEST_FW_DEV_ATTR(trigger_async_request), TEST_FW_DEV_ATTR(trigger_custom_fallback), +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_EMBEDDED_FIRMWARE + TEST_FW_DEV_ATTR(trigger_request_platform), +#endif /* These use the config and can use the test_result */ TEST_FW_DEV_ATTR(trigger_batched_requests),
Add support for testing firmware_request_platform through a new trigger_request_platform trigger. Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> --- Changes in v11: - Drop a few empty lines which were accidentally introduced Changes in v10: - New patch in v10 of this patch-set --- lib/test_firmware.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)