Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] platform/x86: thinklmi: improved DMI handling

Mark Pearson
2025-06-10T12:29:12Z

Hi Ilpo,

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025, at 3:35 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2025, Mark Pearson wrote:
>
>> Fix issues reported by kernel test robot.
>> - Require DMI for think-lmi.
>> - Check return from getting serial string
>>
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202506062319.F0IpDxF6-lkp@intel.com/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@squebb.ca>
>> ---
>> - New patch added to series.
>>
>> drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/Kconfig | 1 +
>> drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c | 8 +++++---
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/Kconfig b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/Kconfig
>> index a4b565283768..207dd7f88ed0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/Kconfig
>> @@ -197,6 +197,7 @@ config THINKPAD_ACPI_HOTKEY_POLL
>> config THINKPAD_LMI
>> tristate "Lenovo WMI-based systems management driver"
>> depends on ACPI_WMI
>> + depends on DMI
>> select FW_ATTR_CLASS
>> help
>> This driver allows changing BIOS settings on Lenovo machines whose
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c
>> index 143d9fdedb65..8f70c60f791f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/think-lmi.c
>> @@ -772,6 +772,7 @@ static ssize_t certificate_store(struct kobject *kobj,
>> struct tlmi_pwd_setting *setting = to_tlmi_pwd_setting(kobj);
>> enum cert_install_mode install_mode = TLMI_CERT_INSTALL;
>> char *auth_str, *new_cert;
>> + const char *serial;
>> char *signature;
>> char *guid;
>> int ret;
>> @@ -789,9 +790,10 @@ static ssize_t certificate_store(struct kobject *kobj,
>> return -EACCES;
>>
>> /* Format: 'serial#, signature' */
>> - auth_str = cert_command(setting,
>> - dmi_get_system_info(DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL),
>> - setting->signature);
>> + serial = dmi_get_system_info(DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL);
>> + if (!serial)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> This should not return -EINVAL as it is not a problem with the input
> parameters. Perhaps -ENODEV would make sense instead?
>

Good point.
Unless Andy strongly thinks I should drop this bit, I'll fix in the next version

Thanks
Mark