[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150310172603.GF1208@fenchurch.internal.datastacks.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:26:03 -0400
From: Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
"Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Capsule update with user helper interface
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:51:59AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> So, for the sysfs interface, let's not allow loading from /lib. Let's
> >> >> not require a userland tool. Let's just do,
> >> >>
> >> >> # echo /path/to/my/awesome/capsule.bin > /sys/../capsule
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> and be done with it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmmm?
> >> >
> >> > I assume you're implying a) the capsule header with the guid is embedded
> >> > in the .bin there already, and b) one contiguous write(2) with error
> >> > reporting coming through something like vars.c's efi_status_to_err()?
> >> >
> >> > If so, yes, I prefer this API.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is using a char device really so bad? I have a "simple_char" that
> >> makes this really easy that's pending review.
> >
> > As long as there's straightforward propagation of the EFI_STATUS return
> > from UpdateCapsule() back, sysfs file vs char device makes very little
> > difference to me. Either way it's open(), write(), close(). Using the
> > runtime firmware upload interface designed for wifi and scsi devices is
> > the part I don't really like.
> >
>
> I'm not 100% happy with write(2) (which is all we have in sysfs) for
> two reasons:
>
> 1. If we write a file name, eww. That's more complicated, requires
> temporary files, has annoying mount namespace issues, etc.
>
> 2. If we write the full contents, we need to do it in a single call to
> write. That means that we can't use cat, which mostly defeats the
> purpose. In fact, using cat could be actively harmful.
So if what we wind up with is:
fd = open("/sys/.../capsule", O_RDWR);
write(fd, buf, size/N);
...
write(fd, buf + M*size/N, size/N);
close(fd);
You're suggesting the error code would post on close()? My worry about
that is that I imagine a lot less code in the wild checks the error code
on close() than on write() - though gnu cat does do so on both. But
there are other questions still - will it post on fdatasync()? On
fsync()?
--
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists