linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] request_firmware: skip timeout if userspace was not notified

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]

Message-ID: <46B43DBA.5040703@urjc.es>
Date:	Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:50:02 +0200
From:	Javier Pello <javier.pello@...c.es>
To:	david@...g.hm
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] request_firmware: skip timeout if userspace was not 
	notified

> I've been told that it's possible to have the kernel pull the firmware
> off of an initrd (or was it initramfs, I keep confusing the two) without
> having any userspace, just put the right file in the right place
> (unfortunantly I've never gotten around to testing this) will this patch
> break this feature?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the way this works is having
the initramfs become an "early userspace", a filesystem that is mounted,
well, earlier during boot, so that it is available before drivers begin
to initialise (earlier: as a rootfs_initcall, as opposed to at the end of
the boot process), but that in all respects behaves as a fully-fledged root
filesystem. In particular, firmware should be requested from userspace in
the standard way, and the patch should not break anything. I would test
this to be sure, but I have absolutely no experience preparing an initramfs.

Javier

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/