linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] dell-smm-hwmon: Add support for disabling automatic BIOS fan control

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <280fd587-fb59-f52e-015b-b9b534c44794@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sun, 17 Nov 2019 07:14:16 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Giovanni Mascellani <gio@...ian.org>,
        Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dell-smm-hwmon: Add support for disabling automatic
 BIOS fan control

On 11/17/19 12:02 AM, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Il 16/11/19 23:08, Guenter Roeck ha scritto:
>>> +    mutex_lock(&i8k_mutex);
>>> +    err = i8k_enable_fan_auto_mode(enable);
>>> +    mutex_unlock(&i8k_mutex);
>>> +
>>> +    return err ? -EIO : count;
>>
>> Why override the error code ? i8k_enable_fan_auto_mode()
>> can return -EINVAL.
>>
>> I can see that the rest of the driver has the same bad habit,
>> but that is not a reason to continue it.
> 
> Ok, I thought it was the appropriate thing to do just because it was
> done elsewhere. If it's not a good idea, do you think a patch removing
> the other instances of this construct would be appropriate?
> 

In general it is never a good idea to override error codes. "I have seen
it elsewhere" is vener a good argument - you'll find examples for everything
in the Linux kernel.

As for fixing up the other instances in this driver, sure, if you feel like
it, but that would have to be a separate patch.

>>> +}
>>> +
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(temp1_input, i8k_hwmon_temp, 0);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(temp1_label, i8k_hwmon_temp_label, 0);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(temp2_input, i8k_hwmon_temp, 1);
>>> @@ -749,12 +794,15 @@ static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(temp10_label,
>>> i8k_hwmon_temp_label, 9);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(fan1_input, i8k_hwmon_fan, 0);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(fan1_label, i8k_hwmon_fan_label, 0);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RW(pwm1, i8k_hwmon_pwm, 0);
>>> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_WO(pwm1_enable, i8k_hwmon_pwm_enable, 0);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(fan2_input, i8k_hwmon_fan, 1);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(fan2_label, i8k_hwmon_fan_label, 1);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RW(pwm2, i8k_hwmon_pwm, 1);
>>> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_WO(pwm2_enable, i8k_hwmon_pwm_enable, 0);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(fan3_input, i8k_hwmon_fan, 2);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RO(fan3_label, i8k_hwmon_fan_label, 2);
>>>    static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_RW(pwm3, i8k_hwmon_pwm, 2);
>>> +static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR_WO(pwm3_enable, i8k_hwmon_pwm_enable, 0);
>>
>> Having three attributes do all the same is not very valuable.
>> I would suggest to stick with pwm1_enable and document that it applies
>> to all pwm channels.
> 
> I had no idea what is the convention here. No problem changing this thing.
> 
>>> @@ -1200,6 +1291,14 @@ static int __init i8k_probe(void)
>>>        i8k_fan_max = fan_max ? : I8K_FAN_HIGH;    /* Must not be 0 */
>>>        i8k_pwm_mult = DIV_ROUND_UP(255, i8k_fan_max);
>>>    +    fan_control = dmi_first_match(i8k_whitelist_fan_control);
>>> +    if (fan_control && fan_control->driver_data) {
>>> +        const struct i8k_fan_control_data *fan_control_data =
>>> fan_control->driver_data;
>>> +        manual_fan = fan_control_data->manual_fan;
>>> +        auto_fan = fan_control_data->auto_fan;
>>> +        pr_info("enabling experimental BIOS fan control support\n");
>>
>> That isn't entirely accurate. What this enables is the ability
>> to select automatic or manual fan control.
> 
> Hmm, it sounds right to me: there is a feature which is "BIOS fan
> control" and this driver can "support" it or not, i.e., be aware of it
> and interact with it or not. And all of this is "experimental". The

"experimental" is fine, and I understand that those involved in this
exchange are aware what the message means. It does, however, not help
others not involved.

> wording seems to capture this to me. However, no problem with changing
> it. How would "enabling support for setting automatic/manual fan
> control" work? Can you suggest a wording?
> 

"enabling experimental support for ... " sounds good to me.

Thanks,
Guenter

> Thanks, Giovanni.
>