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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:02:18 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes with vmalloc()

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:

> 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.

OK, I got it, thank you for sharing the use case.

If loading directly, the patch isn't needed because filp_open() can
return failure on non-existent file.

If loading via user space, timeout or not depends on userspace,
at least udev won't timeout on non-existent firmware image.

Also looks request_firmware_nowait() is better for the case, _nowait()
can avoid unnecessary delay and speedup firmware loading if there
are more than one firmware to load.

Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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/