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: <CACVXFVN1sL1FwUx9t1kQZHW=J-v3_9gDj+jOH2wLgP_a+ywX7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:34:52 +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 3:13 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:

>> 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?
>
> A driver has no way to tell if the firmware is there or not without
> asking for it.

Yes, I agree, and my question is only on what you mentioned:

              "it didn't want to load an optional image"

maybe I misunderstood the above, never mind, :-)

So one driver should suppose the firmware is there, and the
firmware shouldn't be zero length, because the driver always
expects getting some bytes by calling request_firmware().


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/