linux-kernel - Re: Intel Wireless 7260 failed to work

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, 28 Dec 2016 10:37:05 +0200
From:   Luca Coelho <luca@...lho.fi>
To:     Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@...il.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Intel Wireless 7260 failed to work


On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 10:17 +0200, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 09:27:15AM +0200, Luca Coelho wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > > > Is this a known issue? Please let me know if anyone wants more info or
> > > > > > logs, since this error triggers easily (everytime I boot).
> > > > > 
> > > > > The error message isn't really telling much to the user (hint hint) but
> > > > > I suspect this is by design:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "iwlwifi: remove support for fw older than -17 and -22
> > > 
> > > Right, we only maintain support for a certain number of firmware
> > > versions.  The FW APIs change with time and we don't want to keep all
> > > legacy code supporting old firmwares in the driver forever.
> > > 
> > > I agree that "no suitable firmware found!" is a bit scarce.  I'll see
> > > if we can improve that with something: "no suitable firmware found! You
> > > need iwlwifi-7260-17.ucode (<link to git>)".
> > 
> > That'll be great if we can have this info in the log. Maybe no need
> > for a full URL, the firmware name would suffice at least for me.
> 
> In this case, I think we should also print the range that is supported
> when we fail to find any suitable firmware.

Sure, I'll do that.  I just wanted to keep it simple in this thread. ;)

--
Luca.