netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: phy: marvell10g: Support firmware loading on 88X3310

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:09:24 +0100
From: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
 kuba@...nel.org,
 andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: phy: marvell10g: Support firmware
 loading on 88X3310

On tis, jan 02, 2024 at 10:12, "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:15:41AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> On tis, dec 19, 2023 at 10:22, Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:14:39 +0100
>> > Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> +MODULE_FIRMWARE("mrvl/x3310fw.hdr");
>> >
>> > And do you have permission to publish this firmware into linux-firmware?
>> 
>> No, I do not.
>> 
>> > Because when we tried this with Marvell, their lawyer guy said we can't
>> > do that...
>> 
>> I don't even have good enough access to ask the question, much less get
>> rejected by Marvell :) I just used that path so that it would line up
>> with linux-firmware if Marvell was to publish it in the future.
>> 
>> Should MODULE_FIRMWARE be avoided for things that are not in
>> linux-firmware?
>
> Without the firmware being published, what use is having this code in
> mainline kernels?

Personally, I primarily want this merged so that future contributions to
the driver are easier to develop, since I'll be able test them on top of
a clean net-next base.

More broadly, I suppose it will help others who are looking to support
similar boards to run the latest kernel, without the need to juggle
external patches which are likely to break as the driver evolves.

Having a single, canonical, implementation of firmware loading, instead
of multiple slightly-broken-in-different-ways ones floating around, also
seems like a net positive.