linux-kernel - Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in-kernel, use it in more drivers.

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:	Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	david@...g.hm
cc:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, jeff@...zik.org,
	arjan@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in-kernel,
 use it in more drivers.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, david@...g.hm wrote:
>
> David W has made it very clear that the eventual intent of this patch series
> is to remove all firmware from the kernel tree and have it shipped as a
> seperate package.

I don't think that kind of black-and-white model is necessarily 
attainable. Nor do I think it's even _good_.

It's probably the right thign for _some_ firmware, assuming we have models 
that just make it easy enough - for drivers where it's generally better 
for distros to get the firmware from vendors rather than the kernel.

But there is certainly nothing inherently good in forcing a split.

I think both sides here need to calm down and stop being so extreme.

I do want request_firmware() to be the way to load firmware (and possibly 
other configuration data too, for that matter - I don't think it's 
necessarily wrong for people to "misuse" it for other long-term data 
despite the name), and I do want people to be able to update firmware 
easily without having to force a kernel bump, but I also don't think it 
means that firmware has to go away from the kernel sources.

So I think the _infrastructure_ is important. But the extreme "you have to 
split it off entirely" mindset is equally as stupid as the "you must 
compile it into the module" mindset.

			Linus
--
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/