linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/18] firmware: moving drivers to request

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, 05 Jun 2008 16:12:12 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] firmware: moving drivers to request_firmware()

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 15:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Why do we need the .ihex format?
>>
>> We should be loading firmwares exactly as they come from the vendor, 
>> without any wrappers.
> 
> It's just 'objcopy -Ibinary -Oihex foo foo.ihex'. It's purely for
> convenience of handling the binary blobs in git (and it means we can
> append licensing information after the EOF record too, if we want).

Well, I should ask, is this purely an internal build detail?

The developer (and user) should never ever see a .ihex file, outside of 
an active kernel compile.  Wrapping the original firmware makes it more 
difficult to verify, compare and/or change.  In-tree, we should see the 
vendor firmware blobs as shipped, with no wrapping or modification or 
anything.

Any metadata can be added as a separate file.

If .ihex is purely a temporary thing during compile, no big deal, ignore 
me.  Otherwise, that's something we should avoid.

	Jeff

--
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/