| 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: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:11:25 -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() Here is my "ideal firmware world": * do NOT remove ability to compile firmware into the kernel (or into a module) * firmware should be field-replaceable, even if one was compiled in * the preferred form of firmware is one or more binary blobs, stored in a regular [filesystem|git] binary file. * the preferred form is NOT ascii C source, or any other format other than the native format that the hardware wants. Remember, the vendor only provided an ASCII-ized firmware because our system required it that way, not because that's the preferred form. * in-tree firmwares should be stored in one or more binary files in the tree, not in C source code or .ihex files. * when firmware is stored as binary blob, it is easier for (1) vendor to replace, (2) developer/user to compare/verify using sha1, (3) does not require a C compiler or binutils to unpack Thus, if you are going to be touching the in-tree firmwares at all, it doesn't make sense to convert from C source to any format other than native binary. 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