On 18 February 2016 at 15:12, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the delay reviewing this.
>
No problems!
>
> On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 10:41 -0500, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote:
>> Provide an interface for the airplane-mode indicator be controlled
>> from
>> userspace. User has to first acquire the control through
>> RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_ACQUIRE and keep the fd open for the whole
>> time
>> it wants to be in control of the indicator. Closing the fd or using
>> RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_RELEASE restores the default policy.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that the new ops are probably the best
> thing to do here.
>
Nice.
>> +Userspace can also override the default airplane-mode indicator
>> policy through
>> +/dev/rfkill. Control of the airplane mode indicator has to be
>> acquired first,
>> +using RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_ACQUIRE, and is only available for one
>> userspace
>> +application at a time. Closing the fd or using
>> RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_RELEASE
>> +reverts the airplane-mode indicator back to the default kernel
>> policy and makes
>> +it available for other applications to take control. Changes to the
>> +airplane-mode indicator state can be made using
>> RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_CHANGE,
>> +passing the new value in the 'soft' field of 'struct rfkill_event'.
>
> I don't really see any value in _RELEASE, since an application can just
> close the fd? I'd prefer not having the duplicate functionality
> and force us to exercise the single code path every time.
>
I actually added this op only for completion, I couldn't think of a
use-case where simply closing the fd wouldn't be enough. I'll remove
it for the next revision.
>> For further details consult Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-class-
>> rfkill.
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rfkill.h
>> b/include/uapi/linux/rfkill.h
>> index 2e00dce..9cb999b 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rfkill.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rfkill.h
>> @@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ enum rfkill_operation {
>> RFKILL_OP_DEL,
>> RFKILL_OP_CHANGE,
>> RFKILL_OP_CHANGE_ALL,
>> + RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_ACQUIRE,
>> + RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_RELEASE,
>> + RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_CHANGE,
>> };
>
>> @@ -1199,7 +1202,7 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_fop_write(struct file
>> *file, const char __user *buf,
>> if (copy_from_user(&ev, buf, count))
>> return -EFAULT;
>>
>> - if (ev.op != RFKILL_OP_CHANGE && ev.op !=
>> RFKILL_OP_CHANGE_ALL)
>> + if (ev.op < RFKILL_OP_CHANGE)
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> You need to also reject invalid high values, like 27.
>
Yes, sorry for missing this.
>> mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex);
>>
>> + if (ev.op == RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_ACQUIRE) {
>> + if (rfkill_apm_owned && !data->is_apm_owner) {
>> + count = -EACCES;
>> + } else {
>> + rfkill_apm_owned = true;
>> + data->is_apm_owner = true;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (ev.op == RFKILL_OP_AIRPLANE_MODE_RELEASE) {
>
> It would probably be better to simply use "switch (ev.op)" and make the
> default case do a reject.
>
Sounds better indeed.
>> if (ev.op == RFKILL_OP_CHANGE_ALL)
>> rfkill_update_global_state(ev.type, ev.soft);
>
> Also moving the existing code inside the switch, of course.
>
Sure.
--
João Paulo Rechi Vita
http://about.me/jprvita
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
