linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/18] Altera FPGA firmware download module.

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:	Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:26:03 +0100
From:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:	Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@...il.com>
Cc:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	"Igor M. Liplianin" <liplianin@...by>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aospan@...up.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] Altera FPGA firmware download module.

Hi,

On Friday 31 December 2010 16:04:13 Ben Gamari wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:47:41 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > I understand this. However, a complete JTAG state machine in the
> > > kernel, plus an Altera firmware parser, seems to be a lot of code that
> > > could live in userspace.
> > 
> > Moving it to userspace would mean a kernel driver that would depend on an
> > userspace daemon^Wfirmware loader to work. I would NAK such designs.
> 
> Why? I agree that JTAG is a lot to place in the kernel and is much
> better suited to be in user space. What exactly is your objection to
> depending on a userspace utility? There is no shortage of precedent for
> loading firmware in userspace (e.g. fx2 usb devices).

I agree with this. Mauro, why would a userspace firmware loader be such a bad 
idea ?

> > > If I understand it correctly the driver assumes the firmware is in an
> > > Altera proprietary format. If we really want JTAG code in the kernel
> > > we should at least split the file parser and the TAP access code.
> > 
> > Agreed, but I don't think this would be a good reason to block the code
> > merge for .38.
> 
> I agree with the above isn't good reason to block it but if there is
> still debate about the general architecture of the code (see above),
> then it seems aren't ready yet. The code looks very nice, but I'm not at
> all convinced that it needs to be in the kernel. Just my two-tenths of a
> cent.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart
--
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/