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 15:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, jeff@...zik.org,
	arjan@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.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 Woodhouse wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 15:24 -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it suddenly so important that a kernel be 'zero impact' for that
>>> module case, when it's never been zero impact for that case before? You
>>> had to rewrite the initrd to begin with, but now you're not willing to do
>>> it again, just because you have to rewrite it slightly _differently_?
>>
>> becouse the tools that wrote the initrd already put the modules in. I
>> don't maintain those tools, they came with the distro. we're just asking
>> to not require those tools to be updated immediatly.
>
> The tools that write the initrd already put the firmware in too.

not always, as Jeff showed.

David Lang
--
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/