Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 27 Feb 2023 17:01:41 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: Add debug message with checksum for FW file | From | Amadeusz Sławiński <> |
| |
On 2/24/2023 1:54 PM, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote: > On 2/24/2023 1:46 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 09:19:18PM +0100, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote: >>> Enable dynamic-debug logging of firmware filenames and SHA256 checksums >>> to clearly identify the firmware files that are loaded by the system. >>> >>> Example output: >>> [ 34.944619] firmware_class:_request_firmware: i915 0000:00:02.0: >>> Loaded FW: i915/kbl_dmc_ver1_04.bin, sha256: >>> 2cde41c3e5ad181423bcc3e98ff9c49f743c88f18646af4d0b3c3a9664b831a1 >>> [ 48.155884] firmware_class:_request_firmware: snd_soc_avs >>> 0000:00:1f.3: Loaded FW: intel/avs/cnl/dsp_basefw.bin, sha256: >>> 43f6ac1b066e9bd0423d914960fbbdccb391af27d2b1da1085eee3ea8df0f357 >>> [ 49.579540] firmware_class:_request_firmware: snd_soc_avs >>> 0000:00:1f.3: Loaded FW: intel/avs/rt274-tplg.bin, sha256: >>> 4b3580da96dc3d2c443ba20c6728d8b665fceb3ed57223c3a57582bbad8e2413 >>> [ 49.798196] firmware_class:_request_firmware: snd_soc_avs >>> 0000:00:1f.3: Loaded FW: intel/avs/hda-8086280c-tplg.bin, sha256: >>> 5653172579b2be1b51fd69f5cf46e2bac8d63f2a1327924311c13b2f1fe6e601 >>> [ 49.859627] firmware_class:_request_firmware: snd_soc_avs >>> 0000:00:1f.3: Loaded FW: intel/avs/dmic-tplg.bin, sha256: >>> 00fb7fbdb74683333400d7e46925dae60db448b88638efcca0b30215db9df63f >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Amadeusz Sławiński <amadeuszx.slawinski@linux.intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c >>> b/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c >>> index 017c4cdb219e..a6e1fb10763d 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c >>> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_loader/main.c >>> @@ -791,6 +791,47 @@ static void fw_abort_batch_reqs(struct firmware >>> *fw) >>> mutex_unlock(&fw_lock); >>> } >>> +#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG) >>> +#include <crypto/hash.h> >>> +#include <crypto/sha2.h> >>> +#define SHA256_STRING_SIZE (SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE * 2) >>> +static void fw_log_firmware_info(const struct firmware *fw, const >>> char *name, struct device *device) >>> +{ >>> + char outbuf[SHA256_STRING_SIZE + 1]; >>> + u8 sha256buf[SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE]; >> >> Nit, these are big, are you _SURE_ you can put them on the stack ok? >> Why not dynamically allocate them? >> > > Well, those arrays are not that big? First one is 65 bytes and other one > 32. Although now that I looked again at the header, there is > SHA256_BLOCK_SIZE define for string size, so I will change > SHA256_STRING_SIZE to that instead. > >>> + struct shash_desc *shash; >>> + struct crypto_shash *alg; >>> + >>> + alg = crypto_alloc_shash("sha256", 0, 0); >> >> Do we need to select this in the .config as well? >> > > Most likely. >
So I'm having a bit of problem here, as something like: diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_loader/Kconfig b/drivers/base/firmware_loader/Kconfig index 5166b323a0f8..95cf2d8af5c4 100644 --- a/drivers/base/firmware_loader/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_loader/Kconfig @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@ menu "Firmware loader"
config FW_LOADER tristate "Firmware loading facility" if EXPERT + select CRYPTO_SHA256 if DYNAMIC_DEBUG + select CRYPTO if DYNAMIC_DEBUG default y help This enables the firmware loading facility in the kernel. The kernel being the most simple potential fix doesn't seem to work due to circular dependencies. Seems like quite a few cryptography accelerators require FW_LOADER and it causes problems. I tried few more things, but none of them seem to work. Any advice on what I can do here?
>>> + if (!alg) >>> + return; >>> + >>> + shash = kmalloc(sizeof(*shash) + crypto_shash_descsize(alg), >>> GFP_KERNEL); >> >> kmalloc_array()? >> > > Yes. >
And taking one more look, it isn't array allocation but struct followed by VLA used to store additional data, so it will stay as is.
| |