netdev - Re: [PATCH -net-next 1/4] firmware: convert e100 driver to request

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, 7 Jan 2009 10:49:38 -0800
From:	"Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	jaswinder@...radead.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -net-next 1/4] firmware: convert e100 driver to request_firmware()

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
>> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:20:24 -0800
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>> > From: "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
>>> > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:33:36 -0800
>>> >
>>> >> Please hold off on committing, until we have had ample time to do some
>>> >> regression testing.  While this patch may have been in linux-next,
>>> >> this is the first we have seen of it.
>>> >>
>>> >> I am concerned that IPMI traffic will be adversely affected by this patch.
>>> >
>>> > Status please?
>>> > --
>>>
>>> The only testing left to do is to make sure that ICH devices still
>>> work and to make sure the IPMI traffic is not affected by this patch.
>>> All other testing looks good.  I am sorry that I have been slow to
>>> give status, the holiday's have put a strain on available resources.
>>
>> Ok, thanks for the update.
>> --
>>
>
> So here is the latest testing update...
>
> The only testing that we were not able to do was the IPMI testing,
> because of the lack of resources.  All other testing passed.
>
> While all other testing passed, I am concerned about not being able to
> test whether or not this change affects the ability to pass IPMI
> traffic.  I am not sure if the "gain" of using request_firmware() out
> weighs the potential risk that IPMI traffic may be broken with this
> patch.  I guess I wondering what the gain is in using the
> request_firmware() function?
>
> From past experience with IPMI traffic and the e100, the loading of
> the microcode in the correct manner greatly affected whether IPMI
> traffic would pass or not.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>

Removed bad email address (linux.nics@...el.com) from CC.  That email
address is no longer valid.

-- 
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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