Hi 2023. július 20., csütörtök 10:36 keltezéssel, Andy Shevchenko írta: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 07:23:37PM +0000, Barnabás Pőcze wrote: > > 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: > > ... > > > > > > 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? > > Yes and no. If we want to validate the respective bit for GUID vs. UUID, they > will be different. Currently they are the same as validation is relaxed in the > kernel. I see. Regardless, that is the only check `guid_parse()` does, so I don't think it is unreasonable to have only that check for the time being. > > > > > > 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. > > Yes, that's what file2alias is for. We trust modules we build, right? > If you don't trust, then we have much bigger problem than this patch > tries to address. > [...] It seems we have to agree to disagree then. Regards, Barnabás Pőcze
