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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:32:52 +0100 From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl> To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> Cc: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] brcmfmac: don't warn user about NVRAM if fallback to platform one succeeds On 2017-02-16 10:18, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On 16-2-2017 10:04, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> On 2017-02-16 09:38, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >>> On 16-2-2017 8:26, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl> >>>> >>>> Failing to load NVRAM file isn't critical if we manage to get >>>> platform >>>> one in the fallback path. It means warnings like: >>>> [ 10.801506] brcmfmac 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for >>>> brcm/brcmfmac43602-pcie.txt failed with error -2 >>>> are unnecessary & disturbing for people with platform NVRAM. This is >>>> very common case for Broadcom home routers. >>>> >>>> So instead of printing warning immediately with the firmware >>>> subsystem >>>> let's first try our fallback code. If that fails as well, then it's >>>> a >>>> right moment to print an error. >>>> >>>> This should reduce amount of false reports from users seeing this >>>> warning while having wireless working perfectly fine. >>> >>> There are of course people with issues who take this warning as a >>> straw >>> to clutch. >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl> >>>> --- >>>> V2: Update commit message as it wasn't clear enough (thanks Andy) & >>>> add extra >>>> messages to the firmware.c. >>>> >>>> Kalle, Arend: this patch is strictly related to the bigger 1/2. >>>> Could >>>> you ack >>>> this change as I expect this patchset to be picked by Ming, Luis or >>>> Greg? >>>> --- >>>> .../net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c | 16 >>>> +++++++++++----- >>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git >>>> a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c >>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c >>>> index c7c1e9906500..510a76d99eee 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/firmware.c >>>> @@ -462,8 +462,14 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done(const >>>> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx) >>>> raw_nvram = false; >>>> } else { >>>> data = bcm47xx_nvram_get_contents(&data_len); >>>> - if (!data && !(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL)) >>>> - goto fail; >>>> + if (!data) { >>>> + brcmf_dbg(TRACE, "Failed to get platform NVRAM\n"); >>>> + if (!(fwctx->flags & BRCMF_FW_REQ_NV_OPTIONAL)) { >>>> + brcmf_err("Loading NVRAM from %s and using platform >>>> one both failed\n", >>>> + fwctx->nvram_name); >>>> + goto fail; >>>> + } >>>> + } >>>> raw_nvram = true; >>>> } >>>> >>>> @@ -504,9 +510,9 @@ static void brcmf_fw_request_code_done(const >>>> struct firmware *fw, void *ctx) >>>> return; >>>> } >>>> fwctx->code = fw; >>>> - ret = request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, true, >>>> fwctx->nvram_name, >>>> - fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL, fwctx, >>>> - brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done); >>>> + ret = request_firmware_async(THIS_MODULE, FW_OPT_NO_WARN, >>>> + fwctx->nvram_name, fwctx->dev, GFP_KERNEL, >>>> + fwctx, brcmf_fw_request_nvram_done); >>> >>> You changed the behaviour, because of your change in patch 1/2: >>> >>> - fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_FALLBACK | >>> - (uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER); >>> + fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT | opt_flags; >>> >>> So: (FW_OPT_NOWAIT | FW_OPT_UEVENT) vs (FW_OPT_NOWAIT | >>> FW_OPT_NO_WARN) >> >> Sorry, I didn't realize brcmfmac needs FW_OPT_UEVENT. I'll re-add it >> in >> V3, just >> let me wait to see if there will be more comments. > > To be honest whether or not FW_OPT_UEVENT is needed should not be > something a driver needs to concern about. It is really a system > configuration issue if you ask me. So the only thing we could do is to > have it just in case. Drivers always got a choice (see bool uevent) so I didn't want to change it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists