linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: add a function to load optional firmware v2

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, 13 Mar 2018 15:39:23 +0200
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
        Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@...m.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: add a function to load optional firmware v2

"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:10:47AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 3/11/2018 5:05 PM, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
>> > > Your patch series then should also have the driver callers who you
>> > > want to modify to use this new API. Collect from the 802.11 folks the
>> > > other drivers which I think they wanted changed as well.
>> > 
>> > Arend, Kalle, would love to hear your feedback.
>> 
>> I am not sure if it was ath10k, but Kalle will surely know. The other driver
>> firing a whole batch of firmware requests is iwlwifi. These basically try to
>> get latest firmware version and if not there try an older one.
>
> Ah I recall now. At least for iwlwifi its that it requests firmware with a
> range of api files, and we don't need information about files in the middle
> not found, given all we need to know if is if at lest one file was found
> or not.
>
> I have future code to also enable use of a range request which would replace
> the recursive nature of iwlwifi's firmware API request, so it simplifies it
> considerably.
>
> Once we get this flag to be silent in, this can be used later. Ie, the new
> API I'd add would replace the complex api revision thing for an internal set.

TBH I doubt we would use this kind of "range" request in ath10k, the
current code works just fine only if we can get rid of the annoying
warning from request_firmware(). Unless if it's significantly faster or
something.

-- 
Kalle Valo