linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] iio/scmi: Add reading "raw" attribute.

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]
Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 14:32:27 +0300
From:   Andriy Tryshnivskyy <andriy.tryshnivskyy@...nsynergy.com>
To:     Jyoti Bhayana <jbhayana@...gle.com>,
        Vasyl Vavrychuk <vasyl.vavrychuk@...nsynergy.com>
Cc:     Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] iio/scmi: Add reading "raw" attribute.

Hi Jyoti and Vasyl,

Thanks for your review.
I will provide new patch version soon.

Thanks,
Andriy

On 06.10.21 03:16, Jyoti Bhayana wrote:

> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Hi Vasyl,
>
> Regarding below question, yes reading raw attribute should be blocked
> if buffer is enabled for that sensor.
>
>> 1. Should we block reading raw attribute and IIO buffer enabled, for for
>> SCMI sensor it can coexist?
>
> PLease see  https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_core.c#L667
> as well. It has
>
> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
> ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> mutex_lock(&st->lock);
> ret = inv_mpu6050_read_channel_data(indio_dev, chan, val);
> mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
> iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> return ret;
>
> Regarding the question below, the answer is yes.
>
>> 2. Should we wrap reading raw attribute implementation in iio_dev->mlock
>> mutex?
>
> Thanks, Jyoti
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 5:52 AM Vasyl Vavrychuk
> <vasyl.vavrychuk@...nsynergy.com> wrote:
>> Hi, Jyoti,
>>
>>> In the code below, why is the logic of enabling and disabling the
>>> sensor in this function?  Generally the function to read the sensor
>>> value is just used for the code to read the sensor values ? and not
>>> enable/disable the sensor
>> But to read sensor value we have to enable it first. Other way to enable
>> sensor we found is, for example:
>>
>>     echo 1 > /sys/bus/iio/devices/.../scan_elements/in_anglvel_x_en
>>
>> But, this command is related to IIO buffers use.
>>
>> Other sensors drivers enable/disable sensor in read raw too, for
>> example, drivers/iio/accel/kxcjk-1013.c has:
>>
>>     case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
>>             mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
>>             if (iio_buffer_enabled(indio_dev))
>>                     ret = -EBUSY;
>>             else {
>>                     ret = kxcjk1013_set_power_state(data, true);
>>                     ... reading ...
>>                     ret = kxcjk1013_set_power_state(data, false);
>>             }
>>             mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
>>
>> But, after looking on this code I have some questions:
>>
>> 1. Should we block reading raw attribute and IIO buffer enabled, for for
>> SCMI sensor it can coexist?
>> 2. Should we wrap reading raw attribute implementation in iio_dev->mlock
>> mutex?
>>
>>>>      case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
>>>> +               sensor_config = FIELD_PREP(SCMI_SENS_CFG_SENSOR_ENABLED_MASK,
>>>> +                                          SCMI_SENS_CFG_SENSOR_ENABLE);
>>>> +               err = sensor->sensor_ops->config_set(
>>>> +                       sensor->ph, sensor->sensor_info->id, sensor_config);
>>>> +               if (err) {
>>>> +                       dev_err(&iio_dev->dev,
>>>> +                               "Error in enabling sensor %s err %d",
>>>> +                               sensor->sensor_info->name, err);
>>>> +                       return err;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +
>>>> +               err = sensor->sensor_ops->reading_get_timestamped(
>>>> +                       sensor->ph, sensor->sensor_info->id,
>>>> +                       sensor->sensor_info->num_axis, readings);
>>>> +               if (err) {
>>>> +                       dev_err(&iio_dev->dev,
>>>> +                               "Error in reading raw attribute for sensor %s err %d",
>>>> +                               sensor->sensor_info->name, err);
>>>> +                       return err;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +
>>>> +               sensor_config = FIELD_PREP(SCMI_SENS_CFG_SENSOR_ENABLED_MASK,
>>>> +                                          SCMI_SENS_CFG_SENSOR_DISABLE);
>>>> +               err = sensor->sensor_ops->config_set(
>>>> +                       sensor->ph, sensor->sensor_info->id, sensor_config);
>>>> +               if (err) {
>>>> +                       dev_err(&iio_dev->dev,
>>>> +                               "Error in enabling sensor %s err %d",
>>>> +                               sensor->sensor_info->name, err);
>>>> +                       return err;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +               /* Check if raw value fits 32 bits */
>>>> +               if (readings[ch->scan_index].value < INT_MIN ||
>>>> +                   readings[ch->scan_index].value > INT_MAX)
>>>> +                       return -ERANGE;
>>>> +               /* Use 32-bit value, since practically there is no need in 64 bits */
>>>> +               *val = (int)readings[ch->scan_index].value;
>>>>
>>>> +               return IIO_VAL_INT;