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:	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:19:41 +0300
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:44:45PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> > > Personally I am against hacking file loading from within the kernel.
> > > This is why we involved udev (or hotplug in the beginning). It allows
> > > you to have userspace policy for the search paths etc.
> > 
> > Well, I'm personally against _forcing_ people to use udev. 
> > 
> > Yes, desktop distros generally will do so, since there are lots of complex 
> > issues etc. But I don't think we've generally forced it on people if they 
> > don't want it (ie I haven't tried it personally since the distro I used 
> > started using udev, but I think you can still just ignore udev events and 
> > set everything up statically).
> > 
> > And I don't think that's wrong. Which implies that setup things should 
> > still generally at least allow us to avoid udev.
> > 
> > (But maybe I'm wrong, and everybody already uses udev just because they 
> > couldn't be bothered not to).
> 
> I actually think that is the case here. udev is so lightweight and
> really slim nowadays that not using it is a big drawback. There might be
> some system out there that are still using a static /dev directory, but
> for sure there are not many and even the embedded world doesn't really
> mind.
>...

Depends on which embedded systems you look at.

For MID devices that's definitely true, but there are also today still 
cases where customers want fast startup times on < 200 MHz embedded 
devices, and when every second counts you don't want to add a
"Waiting for /dev to be fully populated" from udev to the bootup.

(And on my computer (whose Linux installation predates the inclusion of 
 devfsd (sic) into the kernel) the static /dev also still works fine.)

> Regards
> 
> Marcel

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/