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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 20:39:17 +0200 From: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aoliva@...hat.com, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Abhay Salunke <Abhay_Salunke@...l.com>, kay.sievers@...y.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] firmware: Add CONFIG_BUILTIN_FIRMWARE option On Sunday 25 May 2008 20:23:46 Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > The fact that userspace uses the key as a filename is maybe > > unfortunate, > > maybe fortunate, but shouldn't have anything to do with what sort of > > keys the kernel allows. > > I disagree with you. The kernel should be free of these kind of > subdirectory stuff. We saw devfs failing and we have a flat device > node names in the kernel. Why do we have to duplicate information in > the firmware filenames where we have all the information already > present in the driver model. The reason that people are lazy doesn't > work for me. I think you don't really understand what we are trying to explain. So I'll try it once again. We are _not_ saying that having hierarchy policy decisions in the kernel is a good thing. It's just the case that we _currently_ have this kind of firmware filename, that happens to _map_ to a hierarchy policy currently made by udev. That's either unfortunate (to you) or fortunate (to me). In either case we have to live with it and we can _not_ break it. By introducing a policy that forbids the use of the slash, we do break this. > > Also, you said above (quoting again): > > > >> You are fully > >> exploiting the request_firmware() interface and making any kind of > >> userspace policy impossible. > > > > That's not true at all. If you decide that the userspace policy should > > be to load $modulename/$firmwarekey then you'd maybe have something > > like /lib/firmware/b43/b43-test/ucode5.fw > > and /lib/firmware/b43/b43-osfw/ucode5.fw > > and /lib/firmware/b43/b43/ucode5.fw, this doesn't preclude the use. > > > > Now, if it had been like that from the beginning, Michael probably > > wouldn't have used the string "b43" (or "b43-*") but rather requested > > "broadcom/ucode5.fw" by default and "osfw/ucode5.fw" for the open > > source > > firmware, but since it's just a key that doesn't matter. > > That something works at the moment is not a reason for me not to fix > it and improve the current framework around firmware loading. I have > been a lot of times saying that the request_firmware() should not > include "/" in the filename and driver authors followed it. Some of > them did it anyway and so these need fixing now. But to forbid usage of "/" is the _wrong_ way to go, as it breaks existing setups. b43 users are not going to accept re-installing or moving the firmware files to another place. We had that in the past. It will result in a _lot_ of angry complaints like "How dare can you break my setup!". -- Greetings Michael. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists