linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes with vmalloc()

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: <CACVXFVOT+_nWxZOV0hckVrJwafgb_qr35eKaYg9j=toEJ2DNMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:05:30 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes with vmalloc()

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Mark Brown
> It seems better to punt that decision to callers - for example, the case

In fact, -ENOENT is returned to caller for non-direct loading situation,
see_request_firmware_load().

I understand drivers(caller) may be cheated if a zero-length firmware
image is obtained. In normal situation, one firmware image should
include something, instead of nothing, :-)

> I ran into this with was a driver that was using a zero length firmware
> to say that it didn't want to load an optional image but also didn't
> want to have to time out if that was the case.  That doesn't seem

If so, I am wondering why the driver has to call request_firmware()?
Looks just bypassing request_firmware() is fine for the driver, doesn't it?

Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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/