linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Enable opcode support on BIOS settings

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]

Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 18:36:43 +0300 (EEST)
From:   Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "markgross@...nel.org" <markgross@...nel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Enable opcode support
 on BIOS settings

On Mon, 29 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 7:51 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
> >
> >> Whilst reviewing some documentation from the FW team on using WMI on
> >> Lenovo system I noticed that we weren't using Opcode support when
> >> changing BIOS settings in the thinkLMI driver.
> >> 
> >> We should be doing this to ensure we're future proof as the old
> >> non-opcode mechanism has been deprecated.
> >> 
> >> Tested on X1 Carbon G10 and G11.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
> >> ---
> >> Changes in v2: Update comment for clearer explanation of what the driver
> >> is doing
> >> Changes in v3: None. Version bump with rest of series
> >> 
> >>  drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> >> index 1138f770149d..2745224f62ab 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
> >> @@ -1001,7 +1001,33 @@ static ssize_t current_value_store(struct kobject *kobj,
> >>  				tlmi_priv.pwd_admin->save_signature);
> >>  		if (ret)
> >>  			goto out;
> >> -	} else { /* Non certiifcate based authentication */
> >> +	} else if (tlmi_priv.opcode_support) {
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * If opcode support is present use that interface.
> >> +		 * Note - this sets the variable and then the password as separate
> >> +		 * WMI calls. Function tlmi_save_bios_settings will error if the
> >> +		 * password is incorrect.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		set_str = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s,%s;", setting->display_name,
> >> +					new_setting);
> >
> > Alignment.
> 
> OK - I assume you want the new_setting lined up under the bracket.
> I've not seen that called out as a requirement (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html) but I don't mind fixing....but if you can point me at the specifics it's appreciated

Yes, I meant aligning to the column following the opening parenthesis.

I guess it's not a hard requirement, however, there's a benefit from 
certain things aligning because it helps in the brains in the process of 
converting text into structure with less effort (when not specifically not 
focusing on that particular line).

> >> +		if (!set_str) {
> >> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> >> +			goto out;
> >> +		}
> >> +
> >> +		ret = tlmi_simple_call(LENOVO_SET_BIOS_SETTINGS_GUID, set_str);
> >> +		if (ret)
> >> +			goto out;
> >> +
> >> +		if (tlmi_priv.pwd_admin->valid && tlmi_priv.pwd_admin->password[0]) {
> >> +			ret = tlmi_opcode_setting("WmiOpcodePasswordAdmin",
> >> +					tlmi_priv.pwd_admin->password);
> >
> > Align.
> 
> Ack.
> 
> >
> >> +			if (ret)
> >> +				goto out;
> >> +		}
> >> +
> >> +		ret = tlmi_save_bios_settings("");
> >> +	} else { /* old non opcode based authentication method (deprecated)*/
> >
> > non missing hyphen.
> 
> non-opcode I assume?

I think the most proper English would be non-opcode-based since "opcode 
based" belong together (but I'm not a native speaker here).

-- 
 i.