[flashrom] [PATCH] Refactor the -p internal:mainboard handling.

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:03:29 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:

> Am 13.08.2012 02:51 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> > This patch gets rid of some global variables and makes lots of bits along
> > the code path that control the board enable execution more generic and
> > clearer. From now on flashrom also abort on a few occasions that should be
> > safer for the user. For example we abort if he specifies the mainboard (enable)
> > but we can not find the enable function.
> >
> > Parts of the board_match_cbname refactoring were done by Carl-Daniel.
> >
> > FIXME: manpage
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at>
> > Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
> 
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
> with a few comments and if you fix the manpage.
> 
> BIG FAT NOTE: You do not have to change all the stuff mentioned in the
> review (because that would mean I have to review the patch again), but
> it would be nice to have the review comments addressed in a followup patch.
> 
> > diff --git a/board_enable.c b/board_enable.c
> > index 9c16905..22d4072 100644
> > --- a/board_enable.c
> > +++ b/board_enable.c
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >   */
> >  
> >  #include <string.h>
> > +#include <stdlib.h>
> >  #include "flash.h"
> >  #include "programmer.h"
> >  #include "hwaccess.h"
> > @@ -2443,41 +2444,63 @@ const struct board_match board_matches[] = {
> >  	{     0,      0,      0,      0,       0,      0,      0,      0, NULL,         NULL, NULL,           P3, NULL,          NULL,                    0,   NT, NULL}, /* end marker */
> >  };
> >  
> > +/* Parse the <vendor>:<board> string specified by the user as part of -p internal:mainboard=<vendor>:<board>.
> > + * Parameters vendor and model will be overwritten. Returns 0 on success.
> > + * Note: strtok modifies the original string, so we work on a copy and allocate memory for the results.
> > + */
> > +int board_parse_parameter(const char *boardstring, const char **vendor, const char **model)
> > +{
> > +	/* strtok may modify the original string. */
> > +	char *tempstr = strdup(boardstring);
> > +	char *tempstr2 = NULL;
> > +	strtok(tempstr, ":");
> > +	tempstr2 = strtok(NULL, ":");
> > +	if (tempstr == NULL || tempstr2 == NULL) {
> > +		free(tempstr);
> 
> While freeing only tempstr is correct, it's not obvious.

it is not?
then maybe my naivety guided me well :)
tempstr is the only one that is newly allocated up to this point.
strtok does modify the given string but not allocate a new one... i
thought?

> > +		msg_pinfo("Please supply the board vendor and model name with the "
> > +			  "-p internal:mainboard=<vendor>:<model> option.\n");
> > +		return 1;
> > +	}
> > +	*vendor = strdup(tempstr);
> > +	*model = strdup(tempstr2);
> > +	msg_pspew("-p internal:mainboard: vendor=\"%s\", model=\"%s\"\n", tempstr, tempstr2);
> > +	free(tempstr);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> > - * Match boards on coreboot table gathered vendor and part name.
> > + * Match boards on vendor and model name.
> > + * Hint: the parameters can come either from the coreboot table or the command line (i.e. the user).
> 
> Please add the following comment:
> vendor and model must be non-NULL.

i had a check for this in it already, but since it is not widely used
it does not make too much sense, but a comment is probably a good idea!
done.
 
> 
> >   * Require main PCI IDs to match too as extra safety.
> >   */
> > -static const struct board_match *board_match_cbname(const char *vendor,
> > -						    const char *part)
> > +static const struct board_match *board_match_name(const char *vendor, const char *model)
> >  {
> >  	const struct board_match *board = board_matches;
> >  	const struct board_match *partmatch = NULL;
> >  
> >  	for (; board->vendor_name; board++) {
> > -		if (vendor && (!board->lb_vendor
> > -			       || strcasecmp(board->lb_vendor, vendor)))
> > +		if (!board->lb_vendor || strcasecmp(board->lb_vendor, vendor))
> >  			continue;
> >  
> > -		if (!board->lb_part || strcasecmp(board->lb_part, part))
> > +		if (!board->lb_part || strcasecmp(board->lb_part, model))
> >  			continue;
> >  
> > -		if (!pci_dev_find(board->first_vendor, board->first_device))
> > +		if (!pci_dev_find(board->first_vendor, board->first_device)) {
> > +			msg_pdbg("Odd. Board name \"%s\":\"%s\" matches, but first PCI device %04x:%04x "
> > +				 "doesn't.\n", vendor, model, board->first_vendor, board->first_device);
> 
> Should we ask for a report here? Not sure, personal preference is not to
> ask. If yes, at which message level?

No, most likely it is running on a new unknown board revision with
different PCI IDs. The code is only executed if the user (or the cb
table) suggests the board name. If the PCI IDs do not match the user
will be informed that no match has been found and flashrom will abort.
We will request a -V log then anyway.

In case we encounter such a case we will probably not add the new
revision with the same name, but another one, so the case when there
are multiple enables for board with equal names but different pci ids
should not happen.

> […]
> > +	ret = unsafe_board_handler(board);
> 
> Side note: unsafe_board_handler is a pretty dumb name. Yes, it's my
> fault. Still... check_unsafe_board_enable() or something similar would
> be a better name.

is_board_enable_(un)safe()?

> > -int show_id(uint8_t *bios, int size)
> > +/* Tries to find coreboot IDs in the supplied image and compares them to the current IDs.
> > + * Returns...
> > + * 	-1	if IDs in the image do not match the IDs embedded in the current firmware,
> > + * 	 0	if the IDs could not be found in the image or if they match correctly.
> > + */
> > +int cb_check_image(uint8_t *image, int size)
> 
> cb_check_image_matches_board would be a better name IMHO.

it reflects the current behavior better, yes.
but OTOH it seems to have started as a function that was just showing
the ID and the name was not changed until now, although the behavior
changed a lot. i dont like to name functions too precisely because
it can easily become wrong :)
also, it is much longer and now there is a comment explaining exactly
what it does in case someone does not know.

> >  {
> > +	const char *image_vendor = NULL;
> > +	const char *image_model = NULL;
> >  	unsigned int *walk;
> >  	unsigned int mb_part_offset, mb_vendor_offset;
> >  	char *mb_part, *mb_vendor;
> >  
> > -	mainboard_vendor = def_name;
> > -	mainboard_part = def_name;
> > -
> > -	walk = (unsigned int *)(bios + size - 0x10);
> > +	walk = (unsigned int *)(image + size - 0x10);
> >  	walk--;
> 
> The two lines above made me scream WTF?!?
> Since you're already fixing that code, can you please merge them into one?
> walk = (unsigned int *)(image + size - 0x14);

I am deliberately not *fixing* the cbtale.c code (and i wont in the near
future). in this case i have no idea if your change is even correct.
what if sizeof(int) != 4? is the next item still at x - 0x14 then and
the current code is wrong or would your change break the now correct
code? or am i missing something? :)

> >  
> >  	if ((*walk) == 0 || ((*walk) & 0x3ff) != 0) {
> > -		/* We might have an NVIDIA chipset BIOS which stores the ID information somewhere else. */
> > -		walk = (unsigned int *)(bios + size - 0x80);
> > +		/* We might have an NVIDIA chipset which stores the ID information somewhere else. */
> 
> Actually, "BIOS" wasn't that wrong... let me rephrase the comment so
> that others may have a chance to understand the reason:
> 
> /* Some NVIDIA chipsets store chipset soft straps (IIRC Hypertransport
> init info etc.) in flash at exactly the location where coreboot image
> size, coreboot vendor name pointer and coreboot board name pointer are
> usually stored. In this case coreboot uses an alternate location for the
> coreboot image data. */

i dont see how this makes BIOS less wrong, but thank you very much for
the clarification!

> >  		return 0;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	msg_pdbg("coreboot last image size (not ROM size) is %d bytes.\n", *walk);
> >  
> > -	mainboard_part = strdup(mb_part);
> > -	mainboard_vendor = strdup(mb_vendor);
> > -	msg_pdbg("Manufacturer: %s\n", mainboard_vendor);
> > -	msg_pdbg("Mainboard ID: %s\n", mainboard_part);
> > +	image_vendor = strdup(mb_vendor);
> > +	image_model = strdup(mb_part);
> 
> If the image looks like a coreboot image according to our checks, but
> it's malformed (or not a coreboot image), checking string length with
> if (strnlen(mb_vendor, mb_vendor_offset) < mb_vendor_offset)
> and aborting otherwise may be a good idea to avoid segfaults. Can be
> done in a followup patch, though.

yes, indeed.
as mentioned above i dont want to touch any of this code. i have seen
enough of it that i know that i would have to study coreboot's code and
then rewrite half of this file before i am satisfied. do not want. i
deem it almost useless... who uses coreboot, flashes the wrong image
and is not able to recover afterwards? - someone who deserves it. ;)

> > +	msg_pdbg("Manufacturer: %s\n", image_vendor);
> > +	msg_pdbg("Mainboard ID: %s\n", image_model);
> >  
> >  	/* If these are not set, the coreboot table was not found. */
> > -	if (!lb_vendor || !lb_part) {
> > -		msg_pinfo("Note: If the following flash access fails, try "
> > -			  "-p internal:mainboard=<vendor>:<mainboard>.\n");
> > +	if (!cb_vendor || !cb_model)
> >  		return 0;
> > -	}
> >  
> >  	/* These comparisons are case insensitive to make things a little less user^Werror prone. */
> > -	if (!strcasecmp(mainboard_vendor, lb_vendor) &&
> > -	    !strcasecmp(mainboard_part, lb_part)) {
> > -		msg_pdbg("This firmware image matches this mainboard.\n");
> > +	if (!strcasecmp(image_vendor, cb_vendor) && !strcasecmp(image_model, cb_model)) {
> > +		msg_pdbg2("This coreboot image matches this mainboard.\n");
> >  	} else {
> > -		if (force_boardmismatch) {
> > -			msg_pinfo("WARNING: This firmware image does not "
> > -			       "seem to fit to this machine - forcing it.\n");
> > -		} else {
> > -			msg_pinfo("ERROR: Your firmware image (%s:%s) does not appear to\n"
> > -				  "       be correct for the detected mainboard (%s:%s)\n\n"
> > -				  "Override with -p internal:boardmismatch=force to ignore the board name\n"
> > -				  "in the firmware image or override the detected mainboard with\n"
> > -				  "-p internal:mainboard=<vendor>:<mainboard>.\n\n",
> > -				  mainboard_vendor, mainboard_part, lb_vendor, lb_part);
> > -			return 1;
> > -		}
> > +		msg_pinfo("WARNING: This coreboot image (%s:%s) does not appear to\n"
> > +			  "         be correct for the detected mainboard (%s:%s).\n",
> > +			  image_vendor, image_model, cb_vendor, cb_model);
> > +		return -1;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -242,22 +206,15 @@ static void find_mainboard(struct lb_record *ptr, unsigned long addr)
> 
> find_mainboard is a misnomer... it should be
> get_mainboard_from_cb_record or something like that, and the addr
> parameter was never used since the code was first committed. Followup
> patch, no need to complicate this one.

true, but OTOH it is just a static method...

> […]
> > +	*vendor = cb_vendor;
> > +	*model = cb_model;
> 
> I'm not totally happy with those static variables, but I can't offer a
> better suggestion (unless we want to extend struct flashctx with
> board/device matching info, but anything like that should be a separate
> patch.

yes... but the problem is that cb_check_image is called in doit() and
there is no easy and sane way to get that information there.
OTOH i dont like that special case in doit anyway. it is necessary
because the image is read in there and hence is not available earlier
(at programmer init time).
any changes in this regard would conflict with the layout patch set so
let's postpone this discussion for now. and the situation improved a lot
already anyway (Eigenlob duftet ausgezeichnet! :)

> > diff --git a/flashrom.c b/flashrom.c
> > index 9544155..c39c12c 100644
> > --- a/flashrom.c
> > +++ b/flashrom.c
> > @@ -1814,11 +1814,15 @@ int doit(struct flashctx *flash, int force, const char *filename, int read_it,
> >  		}
> >  
> >  #if CONFIG_INTERNAL == 1
> > -		if (programmer == PROGRAMMER_INTERNAL)
> > -			if (show_id(newcontents, size)) {
> > +		if (programmer == PROGRAMMER_INTERNAL && cb_check_image(newcontents, size) < 0) {
> > +			if (force_boardmismatch) {
> > +				msg_pinfo("Proceeding anyway because user forced us to.\n");
> > +			} else {
> > +				msg_perr("Aborting. You can override this with -p internal:boardmismatch=force.\n");
> 
> 112 column limit...

fixed

> > diff --git a/internal.c b/internal.c
> > index 3ecc348..b1686aa 100644
> > --- a/internal.c
> > +++ b/internal.c
> > @@ -249,10 +256,20 @@ int internal_init(void)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
> > -	/* We look at the cbtable first to see if we need a
> > -	 * mainboard specific flash enable sequence.
> > -	 */
> > -	coreboot_init();
> > +	if (cb_parse_table(&cb_vendor, &cb_model) == 0) { /* coreboot IDs valid */
> > +		/* if no -p internal:mainboard was given but there are valid coreboot IDs then use those */
> 
> Please capitalize first word and finish with full stop. Otherwise you'll
> see an instant followup commit by Uwe changing it. ;-)

if it motivates him to look at flashrom code again, then maybe i should
keep it that way :P

> > +		if (board_vendor == NULL || board_model == NULL) {
> 
> Is it even possible that only one of board_vendor/board_model is NULL?

no, it should not be possible. OTOH '&&' wouldnt be 'more' correct
either, but i want to check both variables... mostly for
consistency/symmetry i guess :)

> > +			board_vendor = cb_vendor;
> > +			board_model = cb_model;
> > +		} else if (strcasecmp(board_vendor, cb_vendor) || strcasecmp(board_model, cb_model)) {
> > +			msg_pinfo("WARNING: The mainboard IDs set by -p internal:mainboard (%s:%s) do not\n"
> > +				  "         match the current coreboot IDs of the mainboard (%s:%s).\n",
> > +				  board_vendor, board_model, cb_vendor, cb_model);
> > +			if (!force_boardmismatch)
> > +				return 1;
> > +			msg_pinfo("Continuing anyway.\n");
> > +		}
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	dmi_init();
> >  
> > @@ -321,12 +338,11 @@ int internal_init(void)
> >  	init_superio_ite();
> >  #endif
> >  
> > -	board_flash_enable(lb_vendor, lb_part);
> > +	if (board_flash_enable(board_vendor, board_model)) {
> > +		msg_perr("Aborting to be safe.\n");
> > +		return 1;
> > +	}
> >  
> > -	/* Even if chipset init returns an error code, we don't want to abort.
> > -	 * The error code might have been a warning only.
> 
> The two lines above still make sense AFAICS.

no, but it did not change with this patch. it has been wrong for a
while i guess. first of all the location is wrong. secondly it is not
true: we DO abort in some cases. and there is a comment explaining this
there already:
	/* try to enable it. Failure IS an option, since not all motherboards
	 * really need this to be done, etc., etc.
	 */
	ret = chipset_flash_enable();

this could be improved though. :)

i have put it back anyway for now because it is unrelated and can
easily be removed in my tested_stuff branch... just tell me if you are
convinced please.

> Thanks for cleaning up this code!

i would lie if i would write "my pleasure", but i am sure reviewing
this was similarly dreadful. :) thanks for the review!
i still need to refine the manpage... so no commit yet.
-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner