linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes with vmalloc()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:52:23 +0900
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes with
 vmalloc()

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:34:52PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:

> Yes, I agree, and my question is only on what you mentioned:

>               "it didn't want to load an optional image"

> maybe I misunderstood the above, never mind, :-)

> So one driver should suppose the firmware is there, and the
> firmware shouldn't be zero length, because the driver always
> expects getting some bytes by calling request_firmware().

The point is that there's some firmware which the driver wants to load
but where it's happy to continue if the user didn't provide one and
doesn't want to introduce needless delays.
--
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/