| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4848489C.6010903@garzik.org> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists