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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID:
 <CH4PR19MB873165A6A20AA85AC907CE5B827E2@CH4PR19MB8731.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 04:31:01 +0000
From: "Ksr, Prasanth" <Prasanth.Ksr@...l.com>
To: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Crag Wang
	<crag0715@...il.com>,
        "hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Dell
 Client Kernel <Dell.Client.Kernel@...l.com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org"
	<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Wang, Crag" <Crag.Wang@...l.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell-sysman: add support for alienware
 products

> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]


Internal Use - Confidential
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.
If the system is Dell-developed, the string value is “Dell Inc.”. System management software can identify a Dell system by checking for “Dell ” as the first five characters of this string. Alienware systems should show “Alienware”.
This is according to the Dell implementation of SMBIOS.

>
> 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?

Agreed on this.

> 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;
>       }