linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] firmware_class: encapsulate firmware loading status

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: <1ffedc17-d2e8-7843-d1e5-5da20d4cae91@bmw-carit.de>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:18:33 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] firmware_class: encapsulate firmware loading
 status

On 08/29/2016 11:50 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On 08/25/2016 07:50 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> +#else /* CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER */
>>> +
>>> +static int loading_timeout = 60;
>>> +#define firmware_loading_timeout()		(loading_timeout * HZ)
>>> +
>>> +#define fw_status_wait_timeout(fw_st, long)	0
>>
>> The timeout makes 0 sense for when !CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER so can
>> we do away with adding a silly 60 value to an int here and
>> the silly value of (loading_timeout * HZ) ? Its not used so its not
>> clear to me why this is here.
>
> So the main reason that silly timeout is needed is the usage of
> it in device_cache_fw_images(). I suggest we add a timeout
> argument to  _request_firmware() and use the right timeout value
> at that level.
>
> That allows to move the loading_timeout into the
> CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER section.

I forgot to answer your question. So we have the dependency to 
loading_timeout/firmware_loading_timeout from the firmware caching path. 
The patch added in the previous email removes that dependency.

We still need the 60 second even in the !CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER 
case. I think it would be a regression if we change that value, no?

cheers,
daniel