linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 3/7] firmware: port built-in section to linker table

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: <20160229185606.GD25240@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:56:06 +0100
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...capital.net,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	david.vrabel@...rix.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, mcb30@...e.org,
	jgross@...e.com, ming.lei@...onical.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, jbaron@...mai.com, ananth@...ibm.com,
	anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/7] firmware: port built-in section to linker table

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12:50AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-19 at 05:45 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > This ports built-in firmware to use linker tables,
> > this replaces the custom section solution with a
> > generic solution.
> > 
> > This also demos the use of the .rodata (SECTION_RO)
> > linker tables.
> > 
> > Tested with 0 built-in firmware, 1 and 2 built-in
> > firmwares successfully.
> 
> I think we'd do better to rip this support out entirely. It just isn't
> needed; firmware can live in an initramfs and don't even need *any*
> actual running userspace support to load it from there these days, do
> we?

I think this is reasonable if and only if we really don't know of anyone
out there not able to use initramfs. I'm happy to rip it out.

  Luis