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:	Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	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.

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:13:16 -0700 (PDT)

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 
> > IMO the newly added /inability/ to build firmware into kernel modules is a
> > clear regression.
> 
> IMO you're being stupid.
> 
> How about explainign why it makes any difference what-so-ever?

Just like Jeff, I think it does.

> If you can load the module, you can load the firmware. Claiming anything 
> else is just _stupid_.

It's about having one foo.ko file that is self contained.

We've always been able to do that.

Just like how when module support was added to the kernel, and we
could still build everything statically into one kernel image if we
wanted to, we likewise should still be able to get everything
necessary for a driver module into a single foo.ko file.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists