Hi 2023. július 17., hétfő 13:31 keltezéssel, Andy Shevchenko írta: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 11:23:50AM +0000, Barnabás Pőcze wrote: > > 2023. július 17., hétfő 11:49 keltezéssel, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> írta: > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 09:24:16PM +0000, Barnabás Pőcze wrote: > > > > Since a WMI driver's ID table contains strings it is relatively > > > > easy to make mistakes. At the moment, there is no feedback > > > > if any of the specified GUIDs are invalid (since > > > > 028e6e204ace1f080cfeacd72c50397eb8ae8883). > > > > > > > > So check if the GUIDs in the driver's ID table are valid, > > > > print all invalid ones, and refuse to register the driver > > > > if any of the GUIDs are invalid. > > > > > > Besides using wrong API (uuid_*() vs. guid_*() one), I don't > > > > As far as I can see `guid_parse()` also uses `uuid_is_valid()`, the format is the same. > > Then add guid_is_valid() to complete the API. Perhaps with the renaming the > common part to something else. But that would be the exact same function. GUIDs are UUIDs, aren't they? > > > > think we need to validate it here. Why not in file2alias.c? > > > [...] > > > > 1) that seems like a more complicated change (duplicating `uuid_is_valid()`?); > > 2) that will only check the GUIDs specified by `MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE()`. > > > > Arguably the second point is not that significant since most users will indeed > > use `MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE()`. But I think the first point has some merit. And > > furthermore, I think this check should be here regardless of whether file2alias.c > > also contains an equivalent/similar check. > > Why do we need it? We never match against wrong GUID from ACPI, since it would > be very weird ACPI table. > [...] The point is to catch typos in drivers' WMI ID tables. Regards, Barnabás Pőcze
