On 5/20/21 9:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:10:17PM -0700, Russ Weight wrote:
>> On 5/19/21 1:42 PM, Tom Rix wrote:
>>> On 5/17/21 11:25 AM, Russ Weight wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/21 10:55 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:45:40AM -0700, Russ Weight wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/16/21 10:18 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 07:31:49PM -0700, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Create the FPGA Security Manager class driver. The security
>>>>>>>> manager provides interfaces to manage secure updates for the
>>>>>>>> FPGA and BMC images that are stored in FLASH. The driver can
>>>>>>>> also be used to update root entry hashes and to cancel code
>>>>>>>> signing keys. The image type is encoded in the image file
>>>>>>>> and is decoded by the HW/FW secure update engine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Russ, you know the Intel rules here, why did you not get someone who has
>>>>>>> knowledge of the kernel's driver model to review your patches before
>>>>>>> sending them out?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basic driver model review comments below, I'm stopping after reviewing
>>>>>>> this one as there's some big failures here...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/fpga-sec-mgr.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,296 @@
>>>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>> + * FPGA Security Manager
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019-2020 Intel Corporation, Inc.
>>>>>>> What year is it? :(
>>>>>> Thanks - I'll fix the copyright dates.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/fpga/fpga-sec-mgr.h>
>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/idr.h>
>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +static DEFINE_IDA(fpga_sec_mgr_ida);
>>>>>>>> +static struct class *fpga_sec_mgr_class;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +struct fpga_sec_mgr_devres {
>>>>>>>> + struct fpga_sec_mgr *smgr;
>>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +#define to_sec_mgr(d) container_of(d, struct fpga_sec_mgr, dev)
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +static ssize_t name_show(struct device *dev,
>>>>>>>> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> + struct fpga_sec_mgr *smgr = to_sec_mgr(dev);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", smgr->name);
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(name);
>>>>>>> What is wrong with the name of the device? Please just use that and do
>>>>>>> not have a "second name" of the thing.
>>>>>> The purpose was to display the name of the parent driver. Should I change
>>>>>> "name" to "parent"? Or drop this altogether?
>>>>> How is "name" a "parent"? To find the parent, just walk up the sysfs
>>>>> tree.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that in this and other cases, I have been conforming to
>>>>>> conventions already used in FPGA Manager class driver:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/fpga/fpga-mgr.c#n397
>>>>> Maybe that needs to be fixed as well :)
>>>>>
>>>>> But, why re-implement the same thing and not just use the existing class
>>>>> framework and code?
>>>> I did the exercise of trying to merge the new functionality into the
>>>> fpga-mgr.c code, but there was so little commonality that it was beginning
>>>> to look like a dual-personality driver. The only thing that could be shared
>>>> was the registration/unregistration of the driver. It seemed cleaner to
>>>> have it as a separate class driver.
>>>>
>>>> - Russ
>>> I'll post a patch in a bit that does nothing new but refactor fpga-mgr's ops into 'partial update' and 'full update'
>>>
>>> existing stuff in partial
>>>
>>> security update stuff in full
>>>
>>> Tom
>> FYI: I just posted patches that remove the managed resource functions and
>> populate the class dev_release functions for fpga_mgr.c, fpga_region.c,
>> and fpga_bridge.c.
>>
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-fpga&m=162155904229400&w=2
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-fpga&m=162155904329404&w=2
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-fpga&m=162155904529409&w=2
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-fpga&m=162155904529412&w=2
> You forgot to cc: me :(
>
> I guess you didn't want me to point out the fact that you forgot to go
> through the proper internal Intel patch review process first, before
> asking others to review your changes?
I didn't CC you because I thought you would want the patches to be
vetted on the linux-fpga mail list (which includes Intel folks) and approved
by Moritz before looking at them. I gave you the FYI here because you requested
the changes and I wanted to let you know that they are in progress.
>
> {sigh}
>
> greg k-h
