linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params

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:   Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:47:35 +0200
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, wagi@...om.org,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, rafal@...ecki.pl,
        arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        yi1.li@...ux.intel.com, atull@...nsource.altera.com,
        moritz.fischer@...us.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        johannes.berg@...el.com, emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com,
        luciano.coelho@...el.com, kvalo@...eaurora.org, luto@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        takahiro.akashi@...aro.org, dhowells@...hat.com, pjones@...hat.com,
        hdegoede@...hat.com, alan@...ux.intel.com, tytso@....edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:59:36PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:35:22PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > You may argue that *one* upstream users is not sufficient to introduce a new
> > feature for, but I disagree given we have had new full *API* added for a new
> > feature on the firmware API even for drivers THAT ARE NOT UPSTREAM! For
> > instance request_firmware_into_buf() has no upstream users!!!
> 
> That's not acceptable at all, I'll send a patch after this to remove
> that.  We don't keep apis around with no in-kernel users, you know this.

I'm delighted to hear we can do away with the request_firmware_into_buf() crap.

> > Now, you might say that even though this is true that there many users of
> > out-of-tree drivers that need this. While true, if this is the bar we'd go
> > with, we can't then ignore the iwlwifi userbase, and the possible gains of
> > having a proper non-recursive use of the daisy chained requests.
> 
> Nope, I don't care about out-of-tree drivers as we have no idea what is
> going on there at all.  I've always had this position.

Beautiful. Music to my ears.

  Luis