linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] ASoC: soc-core: Prevent warning if no DMI table is present

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: <9020a65c-b8b8-ac1e-d0f8-a12e507322b8@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:17:13 +0000
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ASoC: soc-core: Prevent warning if no DMI table is
 present


On 10/03/2021 18:37, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
>>>> Build time dependencies aren't going to help anything, arm64 (and to my
>>>> understanding some future x86 systems, LynxPoint IIRC) supports both DT
>>>> and ACPI and so you have kernels built with support for both.
>>
>>> well, that's what I suggested initially:
>>>         if (is_of_node(card->dev->fwnode))
>>
>>> I used the of_node test as a proxy for 'no DMI' since I am not aware
>>> of any
>>> means to detect if DMI is enabled at run-time.
>>
>> Can we not fix the DMI code so it lets us check dmi_available either
>> directly or with an accessor?  I don't understand why all the proposals
>> are dancing around local bodges here.
> 
> something like this then (compile-tested only)?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> index d51ca0428bb8..f191a1f901ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ static int __init dmi_checksum(const u8 *buf, u8 len)
>  static const char *dmi_ident[DMI_STRING_MAX];
>  static LIST_HEAD(dmi_devices);
>  int dmi_available;
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dmi_available);
> 
>  /*
>   *     Save a DMI string
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> index 16ba54eb8164..c7e4600b2dd4 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> @@ -1574,7 +1574,7 @@ int snd_soc_set_dmi_name(struct snd_soc_card
> *card, const char *flavour)
>         if (card->long_name)
>                 return 0; /* long name already set by driver or from DMI */
> 
> -       if (!is_acpi_device_node(card->dev->fwnode))
> +       if (!dmi_available)
>                 return 0;
> 
>         /* make up dmi long name as: vendor-product-version-board */


Sounds good to me. I would have done the same if I had known that the
current solution would have caused this regression.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic