| 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: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:43:48 +0000 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [REVIEW] NVM Express driver On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:22:26 -0800 > > How would the driver know that it should call request_firmware()? > > Do it every 60 seconds in case somebody's downloaded some new firmware? > > Ick, no, just use the function provided that lets you create a firmware > request and be notified when it is written to, > request_firmware_nowait(). That is what it is there for. Bunkum It's there for automated loading of needed firmware > Anyway, just use request_firmware_nowait(), you will be fine. Not really. You've got no way with the request_firmware interface for the user space and kernel space to reliably time objects together eg to do user side work before a firmware load. Almost all the other stuff in the kernel which is for firmware programming as opposed to automatic loading is not using request_firmware - and for good reasons like needing to be able to specify the path to the object reliably - which cannot be done with namespaces. >From a security perspective, a correctness perspective, for reliability and managability request_firmware is the wrong interface for flashing new firmware. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists