linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: fix async/manual firmware loading

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: <CAB=NE6UHWvk-ReSfKYzRtex8GreJjpGMsp4_-TLBDBme0=hEDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:49:08 -0800
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...sac.net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Jouni Malinen <j@...fi>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        Tom Gundersen <teg@...m.no>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
        Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Harald Hoyer <harald@...hat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>, "4.2+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: fix async/manual firmware loading

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:07:58AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >  It shouldn't be hard to figure out if a patch should be in stable or not...
>>
>> Well with the only caveat now that I am suggesting we consider remove
>> this logic completely as only 2 drivers were using it explicitly
>> (second argument to request_firmware_nowait() set to false), it seems
>> they had good reasons for it but ... this has been broken for ages and
>> we seem to be happy to compartamentalize the UMH further, its unclear
>> why we would want to expand and "fix" that instead of just removing
>> crap that never worked. Thoughts?
>
> Why would you want to remove stuff that works and people rely on?  Don't
> be foolish, you know we can't do that...

I was not advocating removing it if it had worked, I advocated
removing it if it truly was something that never worked.

 Luis