[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6UXX+=nnJcOgO7NWudmDR3bESVO-mQrqG26Gpd4z71xqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:24:14 -0700
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"Herbert, Marc" <marc.herbert@...el.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, Roman Pen <r.peniaev@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>,
Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure how/why a firmware loading daemon would be a better
>> idea now. What Marc describes that Josh proposed with signals for
>> userspcae seems more aligned with what we likely need
>
> Quite frankly, I doubt you want a signal.
>
> You will want to have some way to specify where the firmware files
> are. Right now we have "fw_path[]" which is hardcoded except for the
> first entry that can be set as a module parameter. But you'd probably
> want to expand on that, which implies some /sys or /proc interface.
>
> And once you do that, wouldn't it make more sense to just make the
> "update the firmware path /proc/sys/kernel/fw_path file" make things
> re-search for firmware?
We can, but re-searching for firmware assumes we cache pending
firmware, we currently don't, we just either process sync or async
firmware requests.
> In other words, the interface has to be something *sensible*. Not some
> idiotic ad-hoc "send a signal" (of which that stupid original patch
> was just a very odd example).
Note that the races are beyond firmware, so all
kernel_read_file_from_path() users, as such re-using such old /sys/
interafeces for firmware will not suffice to cover all ground now for
the same race for other possible users.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists