linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] platform/x86: asus-wmi: Enhance detection of thermal data

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 19:49:07 +0200
From:   Yurii Pavlovskyi <yurii.pavlovskyi@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
        acpi4asus-user <acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] platform/x86: asus-wmi: Enhance detection of
 thermal data

On 08.05.19 15:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 1:12 PM Yurii Pavlovskyi
> <yurii.pavlovskyi@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> -               if (value == ASUS_WMI_UNSUPPORTED_METHOD || value & 0xFFF80000
>> +               if (value == ASUS_WMI_UNSUPPORTED_METHOD || (value & 0xFFF80000)
> 
> Seems like a bug fix and thus should be a separate commit predecessing
> the series.
The previous one should theoretically work as well, just thought that would
help readability, will revert this.

>> -       else if (attr == &dev_attr_temp1_input.attr)
>> -               dev_id = ASUS_WMI_DEVID_THERMAL_CTRL;
>
> I don't see how this change affects the user output or driver
> behaviour. Why is it done?
> 
>> -       } else if (dev_id == ASUS_WMI_DEVID_THERMAL_CTRL) {
> 
>> +       } else if (attr == &dev_attr_temp1_input.attr) {
> 
> So, I don't see why you change this line.
> 
Yes, looking at this patch now I'd guess the refactoring there is really
misguided as it adds a lot more code than it removes, will drop it
completely and just add a new condition to the current check instead in
next version:
-		/* If value is zero, something is clearly wrong */
-		if (!value)
+		if (!value || value == 1)

Thanks,
Yurii