linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bnx2 - use 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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0807072028590.12950@asgard.lang.hm>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mchan@...adcom.com,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, bastian@...di.eu.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2 - use request_firmware()

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Alan Cox wrote:

>> Who in the world is going to actually want request_firmware() to find
>> a firmware image other than the one which has been properly tested
>> together with the driver by the driver maintainer?
>
> That misses the point, intentionally I am sure. In the majority of cases
> the firmware doesn't change between releases so shipping a billion copies
> of is a pain in the butt.
>
>> What "use case" is there other than the desire to seperate out the
>> firmware in order to skirt the legal issues?
>
> Not shipping lots of copies
> Not leaving crap locked in kernel memory when it isn't needed
> Letting vendors issue firmware updates (which especially in enterprise
> space is a big issue and right now gets messy with compiled in firmware)
>
>> I think it is, in fact, the driver maintainer's perogative of whether
>> they want request_firmware() to be supported by their driver or not.
>> It is they who have to deal with any possible fallout.
>
> And their users and the distributors for whom it can cause enormous pain.
>
> If the two are closely tied then it makes a lot of sense to keep them
> tied, but that doesn't mean wasting a ton of kernel memory and bandwidth
> and disk space in the process. Loading the firmware and insisting on a
> specific version is quite civilised for a driver with such a tie.

so make the firmware part of the module if the driver is compiled as a 
module. this way if the driver (and firmware) end up not being used they 
don't take up any space. this seems a lot simpler (as well as more 
reliable) then adding a mandatory dependancy on a different userspace 
tool.

David Lang

> (of course we had this argument over ten years ago about modules when
> various authors couldn't be bothered to modularise their driver which
> caused endless pain to the distributions and end users. Remember the
> sound driver situation in early Red Hat. Mind you it got me a job there
> fixing it ;))
>
> Driver authors aren't God. There are other important considerations, but
> for tg3 if that means 'wrong MD5sum, no load' then fine.
>
>
> Alan
> --
> 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/
>
--
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/