linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] Unify sysfs filenames for firmware version

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AE4F746F2AECFC4DA4AADD66A1DFEF01FEAD01@otce2k301.adaptec.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:53:34 -0500
From:	"Salyzyn, Mark" <mark_salyzyn@...ptec.com>
To:	"Jonathan McDowell" <noodles@...th.li>
Cc:	"James Smart" <James.Smart@...lex.Com>,
	<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>, <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Unify sysfs filenames for firmware version

Jonathan McDowell [mailto:noodles@...th.li] sez:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:49:49PM -0500, Salyzyn, Mark wrote:
> > The aacraid cards, which uses hba_monitor_version, 
> > hba_kernel_version and hba_bios_version for each piece
> > does not fit into the single 'firmware revision' common ideal
> While I've used the aacraid cards in the past I think I agree
> with you that no 1 of those 3 pieces of information represents
> the firmware. Perhaps it could export a triplet though?

A single can be used in 99% of all cases, OEM or users can muck
it up. I would 'vote' for hba_kernel_version == fw_version.

Maybe add a companion standard for hba_bios_version == bios_version
and hba_monitor_version == exec_version (executive_version) if other
cards can supply such info ...

> Management stuff always seems to be tied to a single card. It's one of
> the things that puts me off hardware RAID.

There are 113 cards this driver works for in concert. Maybe my tail
feathers are showing ;->

> Do the management folks actually have some ideas about what sort of
> interface they'd like in sysfs?

Simple answer:
	No

Detailed answer (I digress):

They love ioctls as a commonality across all operating
systems and a pass-through to proprietary firmware
portals: binary, bidirectional, atomic and freely
formatted migrating structures that do not herd the
cats into just one specification. These are all
eventually presented as documented stable objects
exported by a sizeable C++ StorLib(tm) library that
provides the consistent interface that the OEMs and
Adaptec use to the higher level install, event, GUI
and CLI applications. Driver is only involved as a
transport.

Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn
-
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/