On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:48 PM Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 10:45 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:03 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 8:50 AM Sebastian Grzywna <swiftgeek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dnia 2023-02-01, o godz. 19:34:48 > > > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 12:38 AM Pedro Falcato > > > > > <pedro.falcato@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Make custom_method keep its own per-file-open state instead of > > > > > > global state in order to avoid race conditions[1] and other > > > > > > possible conflicts with other concurrent users. > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20221227063335.61474-1-zh.nvgt@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > # [1] Reported-by: Hang Zhang <zh.nvgt@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Swift Geek > > > > > > <swiftgeek@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Pedro Falcato > > > > > > <pedro.falcato@xxxxxxxxx> --- > > > > > > This patch addresses Hang's problems plus the ones raised by > > > > > > Rafael in his review (see link above). > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2667007.mvXUDI8C0e@kreacher/ was > > > > > > submitted but since there were still people that wanted this > > > > > > feature, I took my time to write up a patch that should fix the > > > > > > issues. Hopefully the linux-acpi maintainers have not decided to > > > > > > remove custom_method just yet. > > > > > > > > > > Well, thanks for the patch, but yes, they have. Sorry. > > > > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > Can you please explain why you don't want to keep it, given there's a > > > > patch? > > > > > > Because this interface was a bad idea to start with and its > > > implementation is questionable at the design level. > > > > > > Granted, at the time it was introduced, there was no alternative, but > > > there is the AML debugger in the kernel now and as far as debugging is > > > concerned, it is actually more powerful than custom_metod AFAICS. See > > > Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/aml-debugger.rst. > > > > > > If the AML debugger has problems, I would very much prefer fixing them > > > to the perpetual maintenance of custom_method. > > > > > > > I find it really useful in my day-to-day as a firmware engineer. > > > > I don't see much happening in git history of > > > > drivers/acpi/custom_method.c , and I don't see anything that was > > > > specifically changed in it in past 10 years to keep it being > > > > functional. Without your more detailed explanation I have hard time > > > > understanding your decision to remove it, since I'm not a kernel > > > > developer myself. > > > > > > It's been always conceptually questionable, problematic from the > > > security standpoint and implemented poorly. Also its documentation is > > > outdated. > > > > > > The patches fixing its most apparent functional issues don't actually > > > address much of the above. > > > > > > The AML debugger should really be used for debug rather than > > > custom_method and honestly, what's the purpose of it beyond debug? > > > > The above said, if people really do care about custom_method, it can > > be retained, but its documentation needs to be updated to cover the > > current requirements (according to Rui, they have changed after some > > upstream ACPICA changes). > > > > Also note that the upstream ACPICA may not be guaranteed to avoid > > breaking this interface in the future, as it depends on > > acpi_install_method() that is provided by ACPICA specifically for the > > use in the AML debugger. > > Just to be clear, I have no stake in this matter and wrote this patch because > someone complained on #coreboot about the removal. This patch was mostly > trivial to write and if you decide there really is no value in keeping > this, I'm a-OK. > > From a maintainers' PoV, if the AML debugger completely encompasses this > from a functional PoV with a good UX, I would probably encourage you to > remove this once and for all (what's the value in having 2 of the same > functionality?). > > Hopefully the FW folks can give more context and feedback. > > -- > Pedro Hi Rafael and other stakeholders, Gentle ping. Are we axing the feature? Are we reviewing/merging this patch? Having a straight up racy/broken feature in the kernel (even if only under debugfs) is not ideal. -- Pedro
