linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] platform/x86/tuxedo: Add virtual LampArray for TUXEDO NB04 devices

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3e5630c0-2ab4-49fc-8b91-988b327bdcf8@tuxedocomputers.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:24:21 +0200
From: Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>
To: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
 Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: bentiss@...nel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, jelle@...aa.nl,
 jikos@...nel.org, lee@...nel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
 miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, ojeda@...nel.org, onitake@...il.com,
 pavel@....cz, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] platform/x86/tuxedo: Add virtual LampArray for TUXEDO
 NB04 devices

Hi,

an additional question below

Am 27.09.24 um 08:59 schrieb Werner Sembach:
> Hi,
>
> Am 26.09.24 um 20:39 schrieb Armin Wolf:
>> Am 26.09.24 um 19:44 schrieb Werner Sembach:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> +// We don't know if the WMI API is stable and how unique the GUID is for 
>>> this ODM. To be on the safe
>>> +// side we therefore only run this driver on tested devices defined by this 
>>> list.
>>> +static const struct dmi_system_id tested_devices_dmi_table[] = {
>>> +    {
>>> +        // TUXEDO Sirius 16 Gen1
>>> +        .matches = {
>>> +            DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"),
>>> +            DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "APX958"),
>>> +        },
>>> +    },
>>> +    {
>>> +        // TUXEDO Sirius 16 Gen2
>>> +        .matches = {
>>> +            DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"),
>>> +            DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "AHP958"),
>>> +        },
>>> +    },
>>> +    { }
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int probe(struct wmi_device *wdev, const void __always_unused *context)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct tuxedo_nb04_wmi_driver_data_t *driver_data;
>>> +
>>> +    if (dmi_check_system(tested_devices_dmi_table))
>>> +        return -ENODEV;
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> please do this DMI check during module initialization. This avoids having an 
>> useless WMI driver
>> on unsupported machines and allows for marking tested_devices_dmi_table as 
>> __initconst.
I wonder how to do it since I don't use module_init manually but 
module_wmi_driver to register the module.
>>
>> Besides that, maybe a "force" module parameter for overriding the DMI 
>> checking could be
>> useful?

Considering the bricking potential i somewhat want for people to look in the 
source first, so i would not implementen a force module parameter.

Kind regards,

Werner