netdev - RE: [linux-firmware v2 1/2] rtl_nic: update firmware forRTL8111E-VL

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:	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:41:08 +0800
From:	hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To:	'Ben Hutchings' <ben@...adent.org.uk>
CC:	<dwmw2@...radead.org>, <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [linux-firmware v2 1/2] rtl_nic: update firmware forRTL8111E-VL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:ben@...adent.org.uk] 
> > +File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw (Version: rtl8168e-3_0.0.1)
> [...]
> 
> Please don't write the version in yet another way.  It should be:
> 

I just think if someone replaces the firmware with another one, I could check
the firmware through the information without checking the ram data.
For example, someone renames the rtl8168f-1.fw to rtl8168e-3.fw and replaces the
original rtl8168e-3.fw. Through ethtool to show the version of the firmware, I
could know the firmware is invalid. If the version only contain the value 0.0.1,
I must compare the binary file to find out the result.

Do you think it is unnecessary to add this information? I could remove the
relative part if you think so.

> File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw
> Version: 0.0.1
> 
> Or, if you insist on duplicating the name in the version:
> 
> File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw
> Version: rtl8168e-3_0.0.1
> 

Best Regards,
Hayes

--
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