linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: Allow release-specific firmware dir

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1221151165.6309.55.camel@californication>
Date:	Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:39:25 +0200
From:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Thierry Vignaud <tvignaud@...driva.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	jeffm@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: Allow release-specific firmware dir

Hi Greg,

> > > > This isn't compatible with the version of udev that people actually have
> > > > installed, today. And it's also the _wrong_ thing to do.
> > > > 
> > > > Firmware really _isn't_ version-specific.
> > > 
> > > Tell that to every Debian and Debian derived system on the planet.
> > > 
> > > To my knowledge, it is only fedora and possibly one or two other dists
> > > that put the firmware files in a unary /lib/firmware location, rather
> > > than a versioned /lib/firmware/$KERNELRELASE one.
> > 
> > We (Mandriva Linux) do too.
> > Why other distro cannot package firmware separatly for all their kernel
> > flavors?
> > 
> > Firmware are not version-specific.
> 
> Yes it is, when it is bundled with the kernel source tree itself.
> 
> Why do people not realize this?
> 
> This is a real problem for distros, and for anyone who wants to have
> multiple kernel versions on a single machine.  Jeff's patch fixes this.

once you move the firmware into its own package built from a separate
source tree (and not the kernel) this is no longer a problem.

Nobody ever made the claim that the firmware depends on the kernel
version. It might depend on a specific version of the firmware, but that
is different from the kernel version. If you break the firmware or if a
driver requires a specific firmware version it should indicate this.

And yes, the in-kernel firmware versions should follow here at some
point, since the external firmware versions had to do it already for
quite some time, because otherwise more people would have complained
loudly when installing their own kernels.

What is wrong with moving the firmware into its own package with its own
version number?

Regards

Marcel

--
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/