Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com writes:
The _DSM function number validation only happens to succeed when the generic Linux command number translation corresponds with a DSM-family-specific function number. This breaks NVDIMM-N implementations that correctly implement _LSR, _LSW, and _LSI, but do not happen to publish support for DSM function numbers 4, 5, and 6.
Recall that the support for _LS{I,R,W} family of methods results in the DIMM being marked as supporting those command numbers at acpi_nfit_register_dimms() time. The DSM function mask is only used for ND_CMD_CALL support of non-NVDIMM_FAMILY_INTEL devices.
Fixes: 31eca76ba2fc ("nfit, libnvdimm: limited/whitelisted dimm command...") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/issues/78 Reported-by: Sujith Pandel sujith_pandel@dell.com Signed-off-by: Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com
Sujith, this is a larger change than what you originally tested, but it should behave the same. I wanted to consolidate all the code that handles Linux command number to DIMM _DSM function number translation.
If you have a chance to re-test with this it would be much appreciated.
Thanks for the report!
drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c index 790691d9a982..d5d64e90ae71 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c @@ -409,6 +409,29 @@ static bool payload_dumpable(struct nvdimm *nvdimm, unsigned int func) return true; } +static int cmd_to_func(struct nvdimm *nvdimm, unsigned int cmd,
struct nd_cmd_pkg *call_pkg)+{
- struct nfit_mem *nfit_mem = nvdimm_provider_data(nvdimm);
Minor nit: Seems like the function could take an nfit_mem parameter instead of an nvdimm.
- if (cmd == ND_CMD_CALL) {
int i;if (call_pkg && nfit_mem->family != call_pkg->nd_family)return -ENOTTY;for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(call_pkg->nd_reserved2); i++)if (call_pkg->nd_reserved2[i])return -EINVAL;return call_pkg->nd_command;- }
- /* Linux ND commands == NVDIMM_FAMILY_INTEL function numbers */
- if (nfit_mem->family == NVDIMM_FAMILY_INTEL)
return cmd;- return 0;
Function zero? Is that really the right thing to return here?
Cheers, Jeff