Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 13 Nov 2022 13:33:50 -0800
From:   Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@intel.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>,
        "hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        "markgross@kernel.org" <markgross@kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        "patches@lists.linux.dev" <patches@lists.linux.dev>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        "Jimenez Gonzalez, Athenas" <athenas.jimenez.gonzalez@intel.com>,
        "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add current_batch sysfs
 entry
Message-ID: <Y3Fivuffbh2QE/s6@agluck-desk3.sc.intel.com>
References: <20221107225323.2733518-1-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
 <20221107225323.2733518-13-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
 <Y2/JNAmSoYlLKq3A@zn.tnic>
 <CC3629D6-B205-4150-80E5-FC7A7A76DD25@intel.com>
 <Y3CevK2zhAmiUyG9@kroah.com>
 <Y3DZmKYV+8HBtZ+Q@zn.tnic>
 <5e65889d-d68c-b29d-6cea-7b4ce4c87b4a@intel.com>
 <Y3EiKUzpShqwzEf6@zn.tnic>
 <f307b37f-26de-cb8f-e199-f327f2c7f807@intel.com>
 <Y3E3DkX4wHRgSUlJ@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y3E3DkX4wHRgSUlJ@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 07:27:26PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 09:55:00AM -0800, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
> > Then we were told not to specify a filename via sysfs file (apologies
> > for being repetitive)
> 
> Yeah, I'm unclear on why that is either and am hoping that Greg will
> clarify. He fears that there will be file path resolution which I'm not
> even thinking about.

Summarizing the competing proposals here:

Option 1 (patches as currently posted)

	User writes the batch number to the sysfs file:

	# echo 4 > /sys/devices/virtual/misc/intel_ifs_0/current_batch

	Driver turns that into a *partial* path (with test type, family-model-stepping
	and batch number filled in):

		"intel/ifs_%d/%02x-%02x-%02x-%02x.scan"

	Feeds that to request_firmware_direct() (which looks in /lib/firmware)

Option 2 (proposed by Boris)

	User writes a filename to the sysfs file:

	# echo 06-8f-06-04.scan > /sys/devices/virtual/misc/intel_ifs_0/current_batch

	Driver parses that:
		If family-mode-stepping does not match current CPU, then
		fail with -EINVAL
		If filename doesn't end with a ".scan" suffix, also
		fails with -EINVAL

	Otherwise proceeds in similar manner to above. Constructs partial
	pathname (just fills in test type and filename:

		"intel/ifs_%d/%s"

	Feeds that to request_firmware_direct() (which looks in /lib/firmware)


IMHO option 1 is following the microcode precedent of having the kernel
construct the filename based on the {x86,model,stepping} fields of
struct cpuinfo_x86.

I think option 2 isn't really doing the user any favors. Having them
feed all the *.scan files they find in /lib/firmware/intel/ifs_0 to the
driver to see which ones work becomes progressively worse in every CPU
generation. Any script/app running tests is likely to do the ff-mm-ss
filter itself ... so why have the kernel do it too?

-Tony