Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add current_batch sysfs entry

[Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 12:48:40PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Replying to both with one mail because it still feels like there's a
> misunderstanding.
> 
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 08:37:32AM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > No, please do not force the driver to resolve a filename path in the
> > kernel.
> 
> No, I don't mean to do any filename path resolving - all I suggest is to
> echo into sysfs the full filename instead of the number. I.e., this:
> 
> for i in $(ls /lib/firmware/intel/ifs_0/*.scan);
> do
> 	echo $i /sys/devices/virtual/misc/intel_ifs_0/current_batch
> done
> 
> What you end up echoing inside is only the full filename - *not* the
> absolute filename - instead of a number. So those in a succession:
> 
> 06-8f-06-00.scan
> 06-8f-06-01.scan
> 06-8f-06-02.scan
> 06-8f-06-03.scan
> 06-8f-06-04.scan
> 06-8f-06-05.scan

Do you expect the /lib/firmware/intel/ifs_0/ to contain *ONLY* files for
this platform? For microcode we have everything in the public release
included here. 

In the above proposal, you can *ONLY* put files for this platform unlike simply
copying everything released and let the kernel pick the right one since it
does the ff-mm-ss-*.scan lookup. Only the batch number is supplied from
user space.

> 
> The advantage being, you don't need to remember which file sequence and
> which family/model/stepping.

Even in the current implementation, user doesn't need to know f/m/s. That's
something the driver selects automatically, just like what microcode does
for reload.

> 
> For all Intel employees here on the thread, there's a world outside
> Intel and people do not talk (family model stepping) tuples like we do.
> All they wanna do is run their damn tests.
> 
> So instead of what the code does now:
> 
> +	snprintf(scan_path, sizeof(scan_path), "intel/ifs_%d/%02x-%02x-%02x-%02x.scan",
> +		 ifsd->test_num, boot_cpu_data.x86, boot_cpu_data.x86_model,
> +		 boot_cpu_data.x86_stepping, ifsd->cur_batch);
> 
> It would still use the *same* scan_path - /lib/firmware/intel/ifs_0/ -
> no one is proposing to give a full path name - it would only use the
> filename string - 06-8f-06-00.scan, for example - instead of the "0" in
> it to build that string.
> 
> And, ofcourse it would check the format of that string against family,
> model, stepping and sequence number (btw this way you drop your
> limitation of 256 for the sequence number which you don't really need
> either).
> 
> And then if the format passes, it would check the headers.
> 
> And only if those pass too, then it would load.

Isn't it simple now? No need to check if user supplied the right f/m/s
since its not a user input, kernel composes that automatically.

> > Right, it's no different from echoing file names, but it's much
> > simpler to increment a number than do a directory listing and sort the
> > file names, so it can pick up from where it left off.
> 
> It is no different - you still need to remember where you are in the
> sequence wrt to testing.
> 
> So if you want to deal with the timeout, that same script above will
> check the status and wait. Not rocket science.
> 
> As to this Thiago:
> 
> > You can't do it with a three-line shell script, but we're not
> > expecting that shell scripts are the means to use this feature in the
> > first place.
> 
> I consider it a serious design mistake of having to have a *special*
> tool. A special tool is *always* a burden. You need to build it, supply
> it, make sure it is installable on the target system and so on.
> 
> And I'm telling you this with my Linux distributor hat on. It is always
> a pain - trust me.
> 
> For example, there's a reason why you can still control ftrace from the
> command line and you don't need any tool. You *can* use a tool but you
> don't have to. IOW, the KISS philosophy.

The tool we have is not for a simple test run. That can easily be done with
a shell script. The tool does a bit more like handling retries if the test
was not scheduled. The fundamental pass/fail simply output is what the
kernel provides. 

> 
> IOW, I really think that designing our interfaces with user friendliness
> in mind should be of much more higher importance. And requiring the user
> to remember or figure out anything she doesn't really need to, in order
> to run the test is a burden.
> 
> Just look at microcode loading: early loading works automatically - you
> only need to install the blobs in /lib/firmware/intel-ucode/. The initrd
> builder figures out which to add to the image.
> 
> And not even that is required - I have a script which adds *all* blobs
> to my image. It still loads the right one.
> 
> Late loading works also trivially:
> 
> echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/microcode/reload
> 
> And it goes and builds the filename from f/m/s and loads it from the
> hardcoded path - no filename resolving.
> 
> But it doesn't ask the user to give a f/m/s or a sequence number.

I don't think the current proposed interface expects a f/m/s. The entire
IFS design was sort of mimicking the microcode interface. 

The V1 submission did pretty much that. But it required copying files from
some place to /lib/firmware so they can echo 1 > reload.

Instead of copying files over that *did* sound like a hack, the batch was
introduced and that's the only thing needed from user input. 

The utility is more like icing, to run a simple test all you need is a
simple script. It is not a baseline requirement.

Cheers,
Ashok