linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 23/23] Documentation: gpio: add documentation for gpio-mockup

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: <CAMpxmJUd-ALoBi4aC1nsJ7JmEsANe_gZfBegCiZtP6BwPpC52g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:07:02 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/23] Documentation: gpio: add documentation for gpio-mockup

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:01 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 07:03:30PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:22 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 02:06:15PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 1:53 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:26:34PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:59 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 08:15:59PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 9/4/20 8:45 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +GPIO Testing Driver
> > > > > > > > > +===================
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +The GPIO Testing Driver (gpio-mockup) provides a way to create simulated GPIO
> > > > > > > > > +chips for testing purposes. There are two ways of configuring the chips exposed
> > > > > > > > > +by the module. The lines can be accessed using the standard GPIO character
> > > > > > > > > +device interface as well as manipulated using the dedicated debugfs directory
> > > > > > > > > +structure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could configfs be used for this instead of debugfs?
> > > > > > > > debugfs is ad hoc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually sounds like a good idea.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, then we can go on and write an entirely new mockup driver
> > > > > > (ditching module params and dropping any backwards compatibility)
> > > > > > because we're already using debugfs for line values.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How would we pass the device properties to configfs created GPIO chips
> > > > > > anyway? Devices seem to only be created using mkdir. Am I missing
> > > > > > something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Same way how USB composite works, no?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, so create a new chip directory in configfs, configure it using
> > > > some defined configfs attributes and then finally instantiate it from
> > > > sysfs?
> > > >
> > > > Makes sense and is probably the right way to go. Now the question is:
> > > > is it fine to just entirely remove the previous gpio-mockup? Should we
> > > > keep some backwards compatibility? Should we introduce an entirely new
> > > > module and have a transition period before removing previous
> > > > gpio-mockup?
> > > >
> > > > Also: this is a testing module so to me debugfs is just fine. Is
> > > > configfs considered stable ABI like sysfs?
> > >
> > > Yes it is.  Or at least until you fix all existing users so that if you
> > > do change it, no one notices it happening :)
> > >
> >
> > Got it. One more question: the current debugfs interface we're using
> > in gpio-mockup exists to allow to read current values of GPIO lines in
> > output mode (check how the user drives dummy lines) and to set their
> > simulated pull-up/pull-down resistors (what values the user reads in
> > input mode).
> >
> > This works like this: in /sys/kernel/debug/gpio-mockup every dummy
> > chip creates its own directory (e.g.
> > /sys/kernel/debug/gpio-mockup/gpiochip0) and inside this directory
> > there's an attribute per line named after the line's offset (e.g.
> > /sys/kernel/debug/gpio-mockup/gpiochip0/4). Writing 0 or 1 to this
> > attribute sets the pull resistor. Reading from it yields the current
> > value (0 or 1 as well).
> >
> > This is pretty non-standard so I proposed to put it in debugfs. If we
> > were to use configfs - is this where something like this should go? Or
> > rather sysfs? Is it even suitable/acceptable for sysfs?
>
> That sounds like it would work in sysfs just fine as-is, why don't you
> all want to use that?  configfs is good for "set a bunch of attributes
> to different values and then do a 'create/go/work'" type action.
>

I've started looking into it. I need to first implement committable
items for configfs because mockup GPIO chips need to be configured
before they're instantiated. It'll be configfs to configure and
instantiate each chip and a set of sysfs attributes to manipulate
existing chips.

Bartosz