On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:36:31PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 10:29 AM > > To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>; Pali Rohár > > <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx>; Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Len Brown > > <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>; Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@xxxxxxxxx>; Andy > > Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements > > > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 06:25:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > >> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 6:45 PM > > > >> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> > > > >> Cc: pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > >> len.brown@xxxxxxxxx; corentin.chary@xxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxx; > > > >> andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform- > > > >> driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >> Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements > > > > > > > > > > I meant that to say that at least for now Andy's wmi-mof driver should still be > > merged. > > > > If something is going to build on top of this to do WBEM tools, they'll need that > > MOF > > > > data once someone figures out how to nicely deconstruct it. > > > > > > > > > > The thing I don't like about my own driver is that, as a WMI device > > > driver, it can be loaded before the rest of the bus finishes probing. > > > So user programs that are notified asynchronously that the wmi-mof > > > driver is loaded and try to use future functionality (ioctl to issue a > > > MOF-based method call?) might end up doing so before the rest of the > > > bus is probed. > > > > > > This could be addressed by always exposing the wmi-mof device last > > > (sort of -- it can be a module) or perhaps by moving MOF functionality > > > to the core driver. Or maybe it's not really a problem. > > > > Thanks Andy, I'll keep that in mind and see if I can come up with something to > > address it while working on WMI this week. > > > > The other problem with wmi-mof is that there will be no immediate open source > > consumers of the interface, and none on the horizon. We can't even test it to > > any meaningful degree on Linux. I suspect this will be met with stiff > > resistance. > > Well FWIW I did a quick PoC check with the binary that I got out of it to make > sure it matched what was supposed to be. I brought it over to a Win10 box and > decompiled using the mofcmp tool and those crazy arguments I mentioned and > it was correct. > > I'd argue that even if there is no open source tools available today, not making > the data available to userspace makes it difficult to even attempt to start > to reverse engineer. > > Kernel config with default of "N" perhaps for wmi-mof? All true. There is a precedent we're working against on this. I'll include it in my leveling-up thread today or tomorrow. > > > > > > > > Also, isn't there a way to ask Microsoft to document this? Are you > > > supposed to "ask a question" on this forum, perhaps: > > > > > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134029.aspx > > > > > > I'm guessing the Samba team knows how to do this, too. > > > > > Microsoft treats this as an "intermediary" format. I'm not convinced > that anyone other than MS knows anything about it today. > > I agree asking them to document it is probably the right way to go. > Mario, you are most likely in a better position to do that than I am. Would you take that on? -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
