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]

Message-Id: <37f3c2b1-84d7-4b6e-a489-656a23e5cf88@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 12:06:02 -0400
From:   "Mark Pearson" <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
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, May 29, 2023, at 11:36 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 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).

Not a problem. Happy to make this change along with the others. Was just curious :)

>
>> >> +		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 am a native speaker....and I don't know :) (English is weird...)
Let's go with non-opcode; adding the based on there feels wrong to me (somewhat arbitrarily).

>
> -- 
>  i.