Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752073Ab3FXVqR (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:46:17 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:60364 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750900Ab3FXVqQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:46:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:46:15 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Oliver Schinagl Cc: Maxime Ripard , arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, Oliver Schinagl Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Initial support for Allwinner's Security ID fuses Message-ID: <20130624214615.GA17604@kroah.com> References: <1371502778-15849-1-git-send-email-oliver+list@schinagl.nl> <1371502778-15849-2-git-send-email-oliver+list@schinagl.nl> <20130617225847.GA9494@kroah.com> <20130624092942.GG26008@lukather> <20130624160440.GA15201@kroah.com> <51C87DC7.50005@schinagl.nl> <20130624181509.GA8847@kroah.com> <51C8B84C.3020200@schinagl.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51C8B84C.3020200@schinagl.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4243 Lines: 109 On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:21:16PM +0200, Oliver Schinagl wrote: > On 06/24/13 20:15, Greg KH wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 07:11:35PM +0200, Oliver Schinagl wrote: > >>Hey Greg, > >>On 06/24/13 18:04, Greg KH wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:29:42AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>>>Hi Greg, > >>>> > >>>>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 03:58:47PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > >>>>>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59:37PM +0200, Oliver Schinagl wrote: > >>>> > >>>>[..] > >>>> > >>>>>>+static int __init sunxi_sid_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>>>>>+{ > >>>>>>+ u8 entropy[SID_SIZE]; > >>>>>>+ unsigned int i; > >>>>>>+ struct resource *res; > >>>>>>+ void __iomem *sid_reg_base; > >>>>>>+ int ret; > >>>>>>+ > >>>>>>+ res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); > >>>>>>+ sid_reg_base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res); > >>>>>>+ if (IS_ERR(sid_reg_base)) > >>>>>>+ return PTR_ERR(sid_reg_base); > >>>>>>+ platform_set_drvdata(pdev, sid_reg_base); > >>>>>>+ > >>>>>>+ ret = device_create_bin_file(&pdev->dev, &sid_bin_attr); > >>>>>>+ if (ret) > >>>>>>+ return ret; > >>>>> > >>>>>You just raced with userspace, having the file show up after the device > >>>>>was announced to users that it was there. Please use the proper device > >>>>>file api to add default attributes to prevent this from happening. > >>>> > >>>>Sorry if the question looks dumb, but what kind of race can we generate > >>>>here? > >>> > >>>Userspace gets told about the device from the driver core, udev runs and > >>>reads all of the attributes, then your probe function comes along and > >>>adds a new attribute. Userspace will then not know about it at all. > >>> > >>>>The device_create_bin_file is the last call that we make (if we except > >>>>the entropy stuff, but it doesn't really matter here), so after we > >>>>created the file, we have everything properly initialised so that our > >>>>functions can be called, right? > >>>> > >>>>And another dumb question for you, what is the "proper device file API" > >>>>you are referring to ? :) > >>> > >>>Please read Documentation/driver_model/device.txt and see the section on > >>>Attributes for what to do. If you have specific questions after reading > >>>that, please let me know. > >>Since Maxime kinda asked for me, I hope you don't mind me following up. > >> > >>That doc doesn't mention the binary interface at all. Initially I > >>had both devices up, the 'read' device as a textual representation > >>and added the binary one later. Maxime and I decided the binary one > >>made more sense, as the only textual user would be a human and they > >>don't poke that entry that often. > >> > >>So what default way exists for binary files or how would that be solved? > > > >The same interface should work just fine for binary files, have you > >tried it? > I'll just take the plunge and make myself look stupid ;) > > I tried to change things around, used DEVICE_ATTR(eeprom, S_IRUGO, > sid_read, NULL); So far so good I'd hope. Ick, no. > Of course now I'll have to change the function's parameters from > > static ssize_t sid_read(struct file *fd, struct kobject *kobj, > struct bin_attribute *attr, char *buf, > loff_t pos, size_t size) > > to > > static ssize_t sid_read(struct device *dev, > struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) Which is what do you do not want, as you find out: > But now, I'm missing things like 'pos' and 'size', both which > determine the requested bytes. True, in this specific driver we are > talking about 'only' 16 bytes, but what if it weren't but a few MiB > and in sysfs we want to read some random byte, will we have to put > the entire blok into the buffer? > > So sorry for not understanding, but ... I don't understand :) Stick with a binary attribute, and attach that to the proper class structure and all should be fine. Ah crap, you're using a platform device. {sigh} Why? Why not use a "real" device which has a "real" class, and then use the interfaces there? greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/