linux-kernel - Re: Firmware versioning best practices II

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:	Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:00:39 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Vipin Mehta <Vipin.Mehta@...eros.com>
Subject: Re: Firmware versioning best practices II

On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 10:35 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:

> That doesn't prevent some people from using foo-$APIVER-$CODEVER if
> they really have to, of course -- if they have firmware which can be
> conditionally compiled for both old and new APIs, for example. But I
> don't think it should be recommended.

That doesn't make much sense anyway. If the firmware filename is
foo-$APIVER-$CODEVER every code change would need a corresponding driver
change. If it is just foo-$APIVER then the $CODEVER can be embedded in
the firmware file and printed so you know which code you're using, but
if it doesn't influence the API I don't see why it should be part of the
filename?

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)