linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware loader: don't cancel _nowait requests when helper is not yet available

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: <CAPXgP12HMUSdhg660PRX30YO2e2NU-kyjYHgR=AB+dm2TkrJeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:00:30 +0100
From:	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware loader: don't cancel _nowait requests when
 helper is not yet available

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:55, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:51, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> usermodehelper_is_disabled() is a flag from kmod which is all about
>>> exec(). That flag should not be used to decide if a firmware request
>>> can be issued by a driver and queued up or not.
>>
>> Sorry, you're wrong. And Rafael *told* you why you are wrong, and you
>> ignored him and talked about "exec" some more.
>>
>> So go back and read Rafael's email. The point is, you are focusing too
>> much on the name (which Rafael talked about and said is misleading).
>>
>> But it's not the name that matters, it's the concept. Loading firmware
>> during the suspend process is broken (read Rafael's email about
>> suggested renaming).
>>
>> AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXEC. It doesn't matter *how* you load
>> it. You could load it by reading a file directly from disk, AND IT
>> WOULD STILL BE WRONG FOR THE EXACT SAME DAMN REASON.
>>
>> I outlined that reason too. The filesystem may not be up and running yet.
>>
>> Get it?
>>
>> So please, read the emails. People actually *agree* that the name may
>> be a bit misleading, but instead of harping on bogus issues, just read
>> the emails from people like Rafael about it.
>>
>> So STOP with this idiocy already. It has nothing to do with exec.
>> Seriously. Get that through your head already.
>
> I do NOT talk about exec, I talk about a REQUEST which can be QUEUED
> just fine, but which the kernel refuses to QUEUE, even when it will
> not harm anything. That check and warning is wrong.

In simpler words: request_firmware() does nothing but queue up an
asynchrounous uevent in a socket, that always workls, there is no need
to refuse that in the kernel and throw any warning at that point in
time.

Kay
--
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/