linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] platform: x86: Add ACPI driver for ChromeOS

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]

Message-ID: <b9e46ec7-c362-da76-a532-8d380b16d915@collabora.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:31:06 +0200
From:   Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Mario.Limonciello@...l.com
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, rafael@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
        groeck@...omium.org, bleung@...omium.org, dtor@...omium.org,
        gwendal@...omium.org, vbendeb@...omium.org, andy@...radead.org,
        ayman.bagabas@...il.com, benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com,
        blaz@...n.io, dvhart@...radead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        hdegoede@...hat.com, jeremy@...tem76.com, 2pi@....nu,
        mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, rajatja@...gle.com,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] platform: x86: Add ACPI driver for ChromeOS

Hi Rafael,

On 11/6/20 13:06, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 11/6/20 0:43, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 09:52:12PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@...l.com wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:41 PM
>>>> To: Limonciello, Mario
>>>> Cc: enric.balletbo@...labora.com; rjw@...ysocki.net; rafael@...nel.org;
>>>> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; lenb@...nel.org;
>>>> kernel@...labora.com; groeck@...omium.org; bleung@...omium.org;
>>>> dtor@...omium.org; gwendal@...omium.org; vbendeb@...omium.org;
>>>> andy@...radead.org; ayman.bagabas@...il.com; benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com;
>>>> blaz@...n.io; dvhart@...radead.org; gregkh@...uxfoundation.org;
>>>> hdegoede@...hat.com; jeremy@...tem76.com; 2pi@....nu;
>>>> mchehab+samsung@...nel.org; rajatja@...gle.com;
>>>> srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com; platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] platform: x86: Add ACPI driver for ChromeOS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 09:28:36PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@...l.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To give you some references, if I'm not wrong, this prefix is used in
>>>> all
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> almost all Intel Chromebook devices (auron, cyan, eve, fizz, hatch,
>>>>>> octopus,
>>>>>> poppy, strago ...) The ACPI source for this device can be found here
>>>> [1],
>>>>>> and,
>>>>>> if not all, almost all Intel based Chromebooks are shipped with the
>>>>>> firmware
>>>>>> that supports this.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can potentially carry a small patch in your downstream kernel for the
>>>>> legacy stuff until it reaches EOL.  At least for the new stuff you could
>>>>> enact a process that properly reserves unique numbers and changes the
>>>> driver
>>>>> when the interface provided by the ACPI device has changed.
>>>>
>>>> If we use this prefix for hatch EOL is ~7 years from now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't the whole point of the ACPI registry and choosing an ID?  You know internally
>>> if you need to change the interface that a new ID is needed and a new driver will
>>> be needed that comprehends that ID change.  So if you can't guarantee that 0001 is
>>> the same driver interface in every firmware implementation google used then that is
>>> where this falls apart.
>>>
> 
> As far as I know GGL0001 has the same driver interface in every firmware
> implementation Google used. But I'll ask to make sure.
> 
>>> I know there is a long support lifecycle but you're talking about rebasing
>>> to new LTS kernels a handful of times between now and then.  If the interface really
>>> is stable the patch should be small and it shouldn't be a large amount of technical
>>> debt to carry downstream until EOL.
>>
>> I think we are talking about different things actually. Let's forget
>> about Chrome OS and downstream kernels. We have devices that have
>> already been shipped and in hands of users. Some of them are old, some
>> of them are new. We can't not enforce that firmware for these devices
>> will be either released or updated. Therefore, if we want expose this
>> device in mainline kernel, we need to have it handle "GGL0001" HID in
>> addition to whatever proper HID we may select for it.
>>
> 
> FWIW, after investigate a bit more, although GGL is not in the ACPI ID list it
> is in the PNP ID list [1]. So as far as I understand GGL0001 is valid ID. I know
> that PNP ID is the legacy identifier but since this was here for long time and
> will be here also for long time, I am wondering if we can take that as an
> argument to have GGL0001 as a valid device to be exposed in the kernel.
> 

So, as the GGL prefix is a valid ID in the PNP ID list, is this a valid argument
to take in consideration this patch and resolves your concern regarding the ID?

Thanks,
 Enric



> Thanks,
>  Enric
> 
> [1] https://uefi.org/pnp_id_list
> 
> 
>> We internally can fix it (HID) for next generation of devices.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>