Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:14:38 -0400 | From | Andres Salomon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] power_supply: add eeprom dump file to olpc_battery's sysfs |
| |
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:53:11 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:30:08 -0400 > Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote: > > > > > This allows you to dump 0x60 bytes from the battery's EEPROM (starting > > at address 0x20). Note that it does an EC command for each byte, so > > it's pretty slow. OTOH, if you want to grab just a single byte from > > somewhere in the EEPROM, you can do something like: > > > > dd bs=1 count=1 skip=16 if=/sys/class/power_supply/olpc-battery/eeprom | od -x > > > > Userspace battery collection/logging information needs this. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org> > > --- > > drivers/power/olpc_battery.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/power/olpc_battery.c b/drivers/power/olpc_battery.c > > index 9d9dd09..e5ecf27 100644 > > --- a/drivers/power/olpc_battery.c > > +++ b/drivers/power/olpc_battery.c > > @@ -283,6 +283,48 @@ static enum power_supply_property olpc_bat_props[] = { > > POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_SERIAL_NUMBER, > > }; > > > > +/* EEPROM reading goes completely around the power_supply API, sadly */ > > + > > +#define EEPROM_START 0x20 > > +#define EEPROM_END 0x80 > > +#define EEPROM_SIZE (EEPROM_END - EEPROM_START) > > + > > +static ssize_t olpc_bat_eeprom_read(struct kobject *kobj, > > + struct bin_attribute *attr, char *buf, loff_t off, size_t count) > > +{ > > + uint8_t ec_byte; > > + int ret, end; > > + > > + if (off >= EEPROM_SIZE) > > + return 0; > > loff_t is signed. > > Happily, the VFS prevents negative loff_t's from being passed into read() > handlers. > > > + if (off + count > EEPROM_SIZE) > > + count = EEPROM_SIZE - off; > > But the vfs doesn't check for (offset+len) going negative (I think?) > > However you got lucky (or smart ;)) - size_t is unsigned so the comparison > will dtrt. > > Plus the first `if' will prevent us getting here with huge-nearly-negative > `off'. > > This stuff is harder than it should be :( >
Agreed. I actually tested it a bunch with of different i/o back in Feb in an attempt to break it. I think it looks horrid; if there's a better interface for this, I'd be more than happy to switch.
| |