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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160907003023.GW3296@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 02:30:23 +0200
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
        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 Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 09:13:45AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Hi Luis,
> 
> On 08/30/2016 09:34 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 04:18:33PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >>On 08/29/2016 11:50 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >>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?
> >
> >Oh that might be the disconnect, see my series of pending patches, I did away
> >with the cache stuff using the usermode helper, the cache stuff should not use
> >the usermode helper as the cache stuff kills off the pending usermode helper
> >requests right before suspend.
> 
> The question is how do we proceed from here. I suggest that I don't
> touch the fw cache path in my patches. Basically, leave it as it
> now. After your series in, we cleanup this bit here, maybe even move
> the user helper stuff into its own file.
> 
> I think this code is a big interleaved puzzle. Best thing is to
> split it up and figure out what interacts with what. Moving this
> bits here out is definitely the right direction.

How about I remove the timeout crap form the cache stuff in my patch
as you noted and fold then your changes on top of that pending series?

  Luis