linux-kernel - Re: Version number policy!

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:	Fri, 5 Apr 2013 19:03:09 +0200
From:	Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	Adrian Chadd <adrian@...ebsd.org>,
	"ath9k_htc_fw" <ath9k_htc_fw@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-wireless" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-bluetooth" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Version number policy!

On Friday 05 April 2013 10:19:00 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@...ebsd.org> wrote:
> > Here's my first take on the version number policy:
> >
> > https://github.com/qca/open-ath9k-htc-firmware/wiki/VersionPolicy
> > The summary:
> >
> > * major version number changes are for firmware API / behaviour
> > changes that aren't backwards compatible;
> > * minor version number changes are for firmware API / behaviour
> > changes that are incremental and default to the old behaviour (eg, new
> > optional commands);
> > * the driver should check the minor version number before using any
> > optional features with that version.
> >
> > What's TODO:
> >
> > * Add a new WMI command to get the build number, git string, etc.
> > * add it as our first optional minor version command :-)
>
> This is better than anything we had drafted before for 802.11 open
> firmware design rules. Cc'ing a few lists for wider review given that
> what we had written before for rules was for 802.11 and Bluetooth [0]
> and it was very Linux specific. We are striving for open firmware here
> for the community, for BSD / Linux. Christian would have dealt with
> more of the support on open firmware design so far due to carl9170.fw
> [1] so curious if he has any input.
Based on my experience with carl9170, I can tell you that
new stuff (new wmi commands, or advanced offload caps, features
and bugfixes) should be advised via feature flags in bitmaps
and not firmware versions. [Just make it long enough...]

Otherwise you'll have to write endless checks like:
if ((fw_minor == 1 && fw_patch > 30) ||
    (fw_minor == 2 && fw_patch > 7) ||
    (fw_minor == 3 && fw_patch > 3) ||
    (fw_minor > 4))
		feature_supported = true;

everytime you backport features and bugfixes to older firmwares.

Also, firmware dates are more important than you think.
They allow some way of syncing the firmware->driver and
your inbox.

Regards,
	Christian
--
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/