On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:42:50AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> We need to ensure that when driver developers use the custom firmware
> fallback mechanism it was not a copy and paste bug. These use cases on
> upstream drivers are rare, we only have 2 upstream users and its for
> really old drivers. Since valid uses are rare but possible enable a
> white-list for its use, and use this same white-list annotation to refer
> to the documentation covering the custom use case.
>
> New faulty users can be reported via 0-day now.
>
> v2: change dependencies on rules make more sense, and fixed
> context mode
>
> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang...@intel.com>
> Cc: Richard Purdie <rpur...@rpsys.net>
> Cc: Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszew...@samsung.com>
> Cc: linux-l...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Abhay Salunke <abhay_salu...@dell.com>
> Acked-by: Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszew...@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org>
> ---
> Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst | 7 +++++--
> drivers/firmware/dell_rbu.c | 1 +
> drivers/leds/leds-lp55xx-common.c | 1 +
> include/linux/firmware.h | 7 +++++++
> scripts/coccinelle/api/request_firmware-custom-fallback.cocci | 9 ++++++++-
> 5 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst
> b/Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst
> index b87a292153c6..73f509a8d2de 100644
> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/firmware/fallback-mechanisms.rst
> @@ -184,8 +184,11 @@ load firmware for you through a custom path.
>
> The custom fallback mechanism can often be enabled by mistake. We currently
> have only 2 users of it, and little justification to enable it for other
> users.
> -Since it is a common driver developer mistake to enable it, help police for
> -new users of the custom fallback mechanism with::
> +Since it is a common driver developer mistake to enable it, driver developers
> +should use DECLARE_FW_CUSTOM_FALLBACK() to both white-list and validate their
> +use and also refer to the documentation for the custom loading solution.
> +
> +Invalid users of the custom fallback mechanism can be policed using::
Ick, no, why? Why not just add a checkpatch rule instead?
>
> $ export
> COCCI=scripts/coccinelle/api/request_firmware-avoid-init-probe-init.cocci
> $ make coccicheck MODE=report
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dell_rbu.c b/drivers/firmware/dell_rbu.c
> index 2f452f1f7c8a..3f2aa35bc54d 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/dell_rbu.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dell_rbu.c
> @@ -586,6 +586,7 @@ static ssize_t read_rbu_image_type(struct file *filp,
> struct kobject *kobj,
> return size;
> }
>
> +DECLARE_FW_CUSTOM_FALLBACK("Documentation/dell_rbu.txt");
That's a pain.
> static ssize_t write_rbu_image_type(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
> struct bin_attribute *bin_attr,
> char *buffer, loff_t pos, size_t count)
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-lp55xx-common.c
> b/drivers/leds/leds-lp55xx-common.c
> index 5377f22ff994..04161428ee3b 100644
> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-lp55xx-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lp55xx-common.c
> @@ -219,6 +219,7 @@ static void lp55xx_firmware_loaded(const struct firmware
> *fw, void *context)
> release_firmware(chip->fw);
> }
>
> +DECLARE_FW_CUSTOM_FALLBACK("Documentation/leds/leds-lp55xx.txt");
Same here.
> static int lp55xx_request_firmware(struct lp55xx_chip *chip)
> {
> const char *name = chip->cl->name;
> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware.h b/include/linux/firmware.h
> index b1f9f0ccb8ac..e6ca19c03dcc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/firmware.h
> +++ b/include/linux/firmware.h
> @@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
> #define FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG 0
> #define FW_ACTION_HOTPLUG 1
>
> +/*
> + * Helper for scripts/coccinelle/api/request_firmware-custom-fallback.cocci
> + * and so users can also easily search for the documentation for the
> + * respectively needed custom fallback mechanism.
> + */
> +#define DECLARE_FW_CUSTOM_FALLBACK(__usermode_helper)
So you really don't need to put anything "valid" in the define argument?
This feels like such a horrid hack, I really don't like it, especially
as we don't do it anywhere else in the kernel, right? Why start now?
thanks,
greg k-h
