Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v11 05/10] test_firmware: add support for firmware_request_platform | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:22:36 +0100 |
| |
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; >> +} >
| |