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:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 10:42:29 +0000
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
From:   =?utf-8?Q?Barnab=C3=A1s_P=C5=91cze?= <pobrn@protonmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] platform/x86: wmi: Do not register driver with invalid GUID
Message-ID: <_szgAop-lIsQt90xoCYXQbiJtrQclFitfhE2ak2omTiPCx37toqB4lq7OTmBD_vMEn6TonpAns5NgVH1xFpGQLyuLkd0pOGwRqrB8C9INRw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZLjyDQ80QKWtKqUk@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20230715211604.1272227-1-pobrn@protonmail.com> <ZLUOxnE58wUgZXWx@smile.fi.intel.com> <mL0s5ZsO3eU18EzO_7zVsawf2rr7o-zsOrwBDncazQIAgRn-LRNTGw2ugm1bfRoHKWTRYmUHt8s7zjfNEESapwFZlaNj6B041x_AZ-pagoI=@protonmail.com> <ZLUmh0nKJdRMmhX1@smile.fi.intel.com> <kN5iBK5RwAEr8LXNTgb6dUk7zxuGFFtF2q_ReNezksLqaq7C4frYfo6ELswUu0wVoewy3UENAwFjjK48d2qBwf6q4is8ST28zpK6-ze_eIU=@protonmail.com> <ZLjyDQ80QKWtKqUk@smile.fi.intel.com>
Feedback-ID: 20568564:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi


2023. j=C3=BAlius 20., cs=C3=BCt=C3=B6rt=C3=B6k 10:36 keltez=C3=A9ssel, And=
y Shevchenko =C3=ADrta:

> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 07:23:37PM +0000, Barnab=C3=A1s P=C5=91cze wrote:
> > 2023. j=C3=BAlius 17., h=C3=A9tf=C5=91 13:31 keltez=C3=A9ssel, Andy She=
vchenko =C3=ADrta:
> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 11:23:50AM +0000, Barnab=C3=A1s P=C5=91cze wr=
ote:
> > > > 2023. j=C3=BAlius 17., h=C3=A9tf=C5=91 11:49 keltez=C3=A9ssel, Andy=
 Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> =C3=ADrta:
> > > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 09:24:16PM +0000, Barnab=C3=A1s P=C5=91cze =
wrote:
>=20
> ...
>=20
> > > > > 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 renami=
ng the
> > > common part to something else.
> >
> > But that would be the exact same function. GUIDs are UUIDs, aren't they=
?
>=20
> 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 i=
n the
> kernel.

I see. Regardless, that is the only check `guid_parse()` does, so I don't t=
hink
it is unreasonable to have only that check for the time being.


>=20
> > > > > 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 m=
erit. And
> > > > furthermore, I think this check should be here regardless of whethe=
r 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.
>=20
> 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,
Barnab=C3=A1s P=C5=91cze