linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell-sysman: add support for alienware products

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: <7c8b8824-2204-448b-92a4-33b27e3df834@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:27:08 -0500
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Crag Wang <crag0715@...il.com>, prasanth.ksr@...l.com,
 hdegoede@...hat.com, Dell.Client.Kernel@...l.com
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
 Crag Wang <crag_wang@...l.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell-sysman: add support for alienware
 products

On 9/23/2024 01:36, Crag Wang wrote:
> Use SMBIOS Type 1 manfacturer instead OEM strings to verify product
> compatibility. Also, add Alienware products to the support scope.

Alienware systems don't use OEM string "Dell System"?  TIL.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Crag Wang <crag_wang@...l.com>
> ---
>   .../x86/dell/dell-wmi-sysman/sysman.c         | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell-wmi-sysman/sysman.c b/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell-wmi-sysman/sysman.c
> index 9def7983d7d6..2f3f7e307b29 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell-wmi-sysman/sysman.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell-wmi-sysman/sysman.c
> @@ -516,12 +516,27 @@ static int init_bios_attributes(int attr_type, const char *guid)
>   	return retval;
>   }
>   
> +static const struct dmi_system_id sysman_dev_table[] __initconst = {
> +	{
> +		.ident = "Dell Inc.",
> +		.matches = {
> +			DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Dell Inc."),
> +		},
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.ident = "Alienware",
> +		.matches = {
> +			DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Alienware"),
> +		},
> +	},
> +	{}
> +};
> +
>   static int __init sysman_init(void)
>   {
>   	int ret = 0;
>   
> -	if (!dmi_find_device(DMI_DEV_TYPE_OEM_STRING, "Dell System", NULL) &&
> -	    !dmi_find_device(DMI_DEV_TYPE_OEM_STRING, "www.dell.com", NULL)) {
> +	if (!dmi_check_system(sysman_dev_table)) {

Would it perhaps make sense to be an && condition instead of remove the 
dmi_find_device() conditions?

IE:

if (!dmi_find_device() && !dmi_find_device() && !dmi_check_system())

Then you can continue to cover anything that has been rebranded too.

>   		pr_err("Unable to run on non-Dell system\n");
>   		return -ENODEV;
>   	}