linux-kernel - Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:42:00 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	mchan@...adcom.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin"

On Thursday, 3 of July 2008, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > David Woodhouse wrote:
> >> Although it does make me wonder if it was better the way I had it
> >> originally, with individual options like TIGON3_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL
> >> attached to each driver, rather than a single FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL option
> >> which controls them all.
> > 
> > IMO, individual options would be better.
> 
> They had individual options for a long time, but the consensus was that 
> I should remove them -- a consensus which was probably right. It was 
> moderately inconvenient going back through it all and recommitting it 
> without that, but it was worth it to get it right...
> 
> > Plus, unless I am misunderstanding, the firmware is getting built into 
> > the kernel image not the tg3 module?
> 
> That's right, although it doesn't really matter when they're both in the 
> vmlinux.
> 
> When it's actually a module, there really is no good reason not to let 
> request_firmware() get satisfied from userspace. If you can load 
> modules, then you can load firmware too -- the required udev stuff has 
> been there as standard for a _long_ time, as most modern drivers 
> _require_ it without even giving you the built-in-firmware option at all.
> 
> It makes no more sense to object to that than it does to object to the 
> module depending on _other_ modules. Both those other modules, and the 
> required firmware, are _installed_ by the kernel Makefiles, after all.
> 
> It wouldn't be _impossible_ to put firmware blobs into the foo.ko files 
> themselves and find them there. The firmware blobs in the kernel are 
> done in a separate section (like initcalls, exceptions tables, pci 
> fixups, and a bunch of other stuff). It'd just take some work in 
> module.c to link them into a global list, and some locking shenanigans 
> in the lookups (and lifetime issues to think about). But it just isn't 
> worth the added complexity, given that userspace is known to be alive 
> and working. It's pointless not to just use request_firmware() normally, 
> from a module.

Still, maybe we can add some kbuild magic to build the blobs along with
their modules and to install them under /lib/firmware (by default) when the
modules are installed in /lib/modules/... ?

Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/