> -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan O'Donoghue [mailto:pure.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:04 AM > > Small nit. > Hi, Sorry for the late response. Happy New Year. > On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 20:13 +0800, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote: > > From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Introducing a kernel module to expose capsule loader interface > > (misc char device file note) for user to upload capsule binaries. > > This patch ? introduces a kernel module to expose a capsule loader > interface... for a user ... > > > > > Example method to load the capsule binary: > > Example: > Noted. > > cat firmware.bin > /dev/efi_capsule_loader > > > > This patch also export efi_capsule_supported() function symbol for > > verifying the submitted capsule header in this kernel module. > > 1. Should be a separate patch > 2. Suggested, rewording for that patch log > > 2/2 Title > This patch exports efi_capsule_supported to enable verification of the > capsule header. > > That said - who is the user of this symbol ? Why is it needed ? Anyway > please consider splitting and rewording. > Answered by Borislav. > > > > +config EFI_CAPSULE_LOADER > > + tristate "EFI capsule loader" > > + depends on EFI > > + help > > + This option exposes a loader interface > > "/dev/efi_capsule_loader" for > > + user to load EFI capsule binary and update the EFI > > firmware. After > > + a successful loading, a system reboot is required. > > + > > + If unsure, say N. > > + > > This option exposes a loader interface... for a user to load an EFI > capsule. > > A capsule isn't necessarily exclusively for updating of firmware either > AFAIK - so I suggest dropping. > > http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and- > technology/unif > ied-extensible-firmware-interface/efi-capsule-specification.html > > Quote "Capsules were designed for and are intended to be the major > vehicle for delivering firmware volume changes. There is no requirement > that capsules be limited to that function." > Noted. > > > > + > > +/** > > + * efi_free_all_buff_pages - free all previous allocated buffer > > pages > > + * @cap_info: pointer to current instance of capsule_info structure > > + * > > + * Besides freeing the buffer pages, it also flagged an > > + * NO_FURTHER_WRITE_ACTION flag for indicating to the next > > write entries > > + * that there is a flaw happened and any subsequence actions > > are not > > + * valid unless close(2). > > + **/ > > The description needs to be reworded. > > In addition to freeing buffer pages, we flag NO_FURTHER_WRITE_ACTION on > error and will cease to process data in subsequent efi_capsule_write() > calls. > > (or similar) > Noted. > > + > > +/** > > + * efi_capsule_setup_info - to obtain the efi capsule header in the > > binary and > > + * setup capsule_info structure > > + * @cap_info: pointer to current instance of capsule_info structure > > + * @kbuff: a mapped 1st page buffer pointer > > first not 1st > Noted. > > + * @hdr_bytes: the total bytes of received efi header > > the total number of received bytes of the EFI header > Noted. > > + **/ > > +static ssize_t efi_capsule_setup_info(struct capsule_info *cap_info, > > + void *kbuff, size_t hdr_bytes) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + void *temp_page; > > + > > + /* Handling 1st block is less than header size */ > first or initial > I think you mean to say "Ensure first > No. I mean handling. I will change to "first" > > + > > + /* Check if the capsule binary supported */ > > + mutex_lock(&capsule_loader_lock); > > + ret = efi_capsule_supported(cap_hdr->guid, cap_hdr > > ->flags, > > + cap_hdr->imagesize, > > + &cap_info->reset_type); > > + mutex_unlock(&capsule_loader_lock); > > What does this mutex really do ? You hold it here around > efi_capsule_supported() in the call > > chain efi_capsule_write() => efi_capsule_setup_info() > > and then again inside of efi_capsule_submit_update() the call chain > > chain efi_capsule_write() => efi_capsule_submit_update() > > So if its valid to ensure you are synchronizing parallel contexts with > -respect to calls into efi_capsule_supported() and > efi_capsule_submit_update() why aren't you holding that lock for the > duration of efi_capsule_write() - couldn't cap_info->page_bytes_remain > as an example equally be racy ? > This is to protect multiple instant calling open(2) and still able to synchronize the calling to efi_capsule_supported() and efi_capsule_update() when they are uploading the capsule concurrently. > > > + > > +/** > > + * efi_capsule_submit_update - invoke the efi_capsule_update API > > once binary > > + * upload done > > + * @cap_info: pointer to current instance of capsule_info structure > > + **/ > > +static ssize_t efi_capsule_submit_update(struct capsule_info > > *cap_info) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + void *cap_hdr_temp; > > + > > + cap_hdr_temp = kmap(cap_info->pages[0]); > > + if (!cap_hdr_temp) { > > + pr_debug("%s: kmap() failed\n", __func__); > > + return -EFAULT; > > + } > > + > > + mutex_lock(&capsule_loader_lock); > > + ret = efi_capsule_update(cap_hdr_temp, cap_info->pages); > > + mutex_unlock(&capsule_loader_lock); > > + kunmap(cap_info->pages[0]); > > + if (ret) { > > + pr_err("%s: efi_capsule_update() failed\n", > > __func__); > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + /* Indicate capsule binary uploading is done */ > > + cap_info->index = NO_FURTHER_WRITE_ACTION; > > Again - if you need a mutex for efi_capsule_update() why don't you need > a mutex for cap_info->index updates looks racy... > Answered as above. > +} > > + > > +/** > > + * efi_capsule_write - store the capsule binary and pass it to > > + * efi_capsule_update() API > > + * @file: file pointer > > + * @buff: buffer pointer > > + * @count: number of bytes in @buff > > + * @offp: not used > > + * > > + * Expectation: > > + * - User space tool should start at the beginning of capsule > > binary and > > + * pass data in sequential. > > A user-space tool.. sequentially > Noted. > > + * - User should close and re-open this file note in order to > > upload more > > + * capsules. > > A user should.. > Will change to use plural. > > + * - Any error occurred, user should close the file and > > restart the > > + * operation for the next try otherwise -EIO will be > > returned until the > > + * file is closed. > > On error -EIO will be returned and capsule loading will be abandoned. > What I am trying to tell is that after an error happen (for e.g. -ENOMEM), then user should close it and restart the file open, write & close operation. If not, then only -EIO will be returned. I do not means that any error happen, only -EIO is returned. > > > + * - EFI capsule header must be located at the beginning of > > capsule binary > > + * file and passed in as 1st block write. > > An EFI capsule header.... in as the first data in the first write > operation > Noted. > > > + **/ > > +static ssize_t efi_capsule_write(struct file *file, const char > > __user *buff, > > + size_t count, loff_t *offp) > > +{ > > + int ret = 0; > > + struct capsule_info *cap_info = file->private_data; > > + struct page *kbuff_page = NULL; > > + void *kbuff = NULL; > > + size_t write_byte; > > + > > + if (count == 0) > > + return 0; > > + > > + /* Return error while NO_FURTHER_WRITE_ACTION is flagged */ > > + if (cap_info->index < 0) > > + return -EIO; > > + > > + /* Only alloc a new page when previous page is full */ > > + if (!cap_info->page_bytes_remain) { > > + kbuff_page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!kbuff_page) { > > + pr_debug("%s: alloc_page() failed\n", > > __func__); > > Shouldn't this be a pr_err() ? > As mentioned by Borislav, error will be propagated by -ENOMEM and there is not needed to have double printing. > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > + goto failed; > > + } > > + cap_info->page_bytes_remain = PAGE_SIZE; > > + } else { > > + kbuff_page = cap_info->pages[--cap_info->index]; > > How are you guaranteeing this index doesn't go negative ? You compare > index < 0 above so the pre-decrement could be negative ... right ? > Taking care by ->page_bytes_remain, if ->index is zero then ->page_bytes_remain must be zero. > > + } > > + > > + kbuff = kmap(kbuff_page); > > + if (!kbuff) { > > + pr_debug("%s: kmap() failed\n", __func__); > > and here ? > > > + ret = -EFAULT; > > + goto fail_freepage; > > + } > > + kbuff += PAGE_SIZE - cap_info->page_bytes_remain; > > + > > + /* Copy capsule binary data from user space to kernel space > > buffer */ > > + write_byte = min_t(size_t, count, cap_info > > ->page_bytes_remain); > > + if (copy_from_user(kbuff, buff, write_byte)) { > > + pr_debug("%s: copy_from_user() failed\n", __func__); > > ditto > > > + ret = -EFAULT; > > + goto fail_unmap; > > + } > > + cap_info->page_bytes_remain -= write_byte; > > + > > + /* Setup capsule binary info structure */ > > + if (!cap_info->header_obtained) { > > + ret = efi_capsule_setup_info(cap_info, kbuff, > > + cap_info->count + > > write_byte); > > + if (ret) > > + goto fail_unmap; > > + } > > + > > + cap_info->pages[cap_info->index++] = kbuff_page; > > + cap_info->count += write_byte; > > + kunmap(kbuff_page); > > + > > + /* Submit the full binary to efi_capsule_update() API */ > > + if (cap_info->header_obtained && > > + cap_info->count >= cap_info->total_size) { > > + if (cap_info->count > cap_info->total_size) { > > + pr_err("%s: upload size exceeded header > > defined size\n", > > + __func__); > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > + goto failed; > > Shouldn't this be fail_freepage ? > No, at this stage, kbuff_page no longer valid and have been assigned to ->pages[]. > > + } > > + > > + ret = efi_capsule_submit_update(cap_info); > > + if (ret) > > + goto failed; > > Shouldn't this be fail_freepage ? > Same as above. > > + } > > + > > + return write_byte; > > + > > +fail_unmap: > > + kunmap(kbuff_page); > > +fail_freepage: > > + __free_page(kbuff_page); > > +failed: > > + efi_free_all_buff_pages(cap_info); > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > +/** > > + * efi_capsule_flush - called by file close or file flush > > + * @file: file pointer > > + * @id: not used > > + * > > + * If capsule being uploaded partially, calling this function > > will be > > + * treated as uploading canceled and will free up those > > > > > completed buffer > > + * pages and then return -ECANCELED. > > If a capsule is being partially updated then calling this function will > be treated as upload termination and will free completed buffer pages; > in this case -ECANCELLED will be returned. > Noted. > > > + **/ > > +static int efi_capsule_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id) > > +{ > > + int ret = 0; > > + struct capsule_info *cap_info = file->private_data; > > + > > + if (cap_info->index > 0) { > > + pr_err("%s: capsule upload not complete\n", > > __func__); > > + efi_free_all_buff_pages(cap_info); > > + ret = -ECANCELED; > > + } > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > +/** > > + * efi_capsule_release - called by file close > > + * @inode: not used > > + * @file: file pointer > > + * > > + * We would not free the successful submitted buffer pages > > here due to > > + * efi update require system reboot with data maintained. > > + **/ > > We will not free successfully submitted pages since EFI update requires > data to be maintained across boot. > Noted. > > > +static int efi_capsule_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > > +{ > > + struct capsule_info *cap_info; > > + > > + cap_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*cap_info), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!cap_info) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + file->private_data = cap_info; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > You have a memory leak here don't you ? > > if I do > for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { > fd = open(/dev/your_node); > close(fd); > } > > You'll leak that kzalloc... When you perform close(fd), efi_capsule_release() will be called and cap_info will be freed there. Thanks & Regards, Wilson ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����* jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
