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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:35:52 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hugh@...itas.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, mchan@...adcom.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 09:39:36AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> You have been told repeatedly that cp(1) and scp(1) are commonly used to >> transport the module David and I care about -- tg3. It's been a single >> file module since birth, and people take advantage of that fact. > > Here, I think I'll have to respectly disagree with you and say that > you are taking things too far. I don't think scp'ing individual > modules around counts as an "exported user interface" the same way, > say "make install; make modules_install" is a commonly understand and > used interface by users and scripts (i.e., such as Debian's make-kpkg, > which does NOT know about "make firmware_install", BTW). It's not just netdev developers that use that method, root (notably router) image and driver disk build scripts use it too. They've been able to skate around module dependencies because network drivers rarely have module dependencies or require big multi-module systems. Example -- the driver disk kit that RH informally gave out, which was widely used, but does not use normal kernel build processes: http://people.redhat.com/dledford/mod_devel_kit.tgz Even if one modifies 'make modules_install' as discussed[1], kits like these will report "100% success! driver disk created", yet ship a dead driver disk. That is why putting the firmware in the kernel image, as dwmw2 has done, does not fix regressions here: driver disk authors do not necessarily have the luxury of updating the kernel. Conclusion - we should not build a system today that /excludes/ the possibility of building drivers as they are built today -- with the firmware inside the module [if CONFIG_FOO=m] or kernel image [if CONFIG_FOO=y]. That is the only path that gives everyone a chance to deal with this transition. Jeff [1] a laudable and useful thing to do, and it sounds like it is being accomplished. great! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists