linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/5] iwlwifi: fix request

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:15:41 +0100
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        "Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
        "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
        "arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "ming.lei@...onical.com" <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
        "zajec5@...il.com" <zajec5@...il.com>,
        "jeyu@...hat.com" <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        "rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        "pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linuxwifi <linuxwifi@...el.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] iwlwifi: fix request_module() use

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:16:16AM +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> > 
> > a) just remove the print and use instead request_module_nowait() (this is
> > more in alignment of what your code actually does today; or
> > 
> > b) fix the request_module() use so that the error print matches the
> > expected and proper recommended use of request_module() (what this patch
> > does)
> > 
> > I prefer a) actually but I had to show what b) looked like first :)
>
> Me too. Let's do the simple thing. After all, it's been working for 5 years
> now (maybe more?) and I don't see a huge need to verify that the opmode
> module has been loaded.  It is very unlikely to fail anyway, and in the case
> it did fail, it's not that we can do much from iwlwifi point of view. 

I tend to agree with you on this, retries would be the only sensible thing to
do, but why do that -- the error should be logged right and addressed by any
upper layers. Its one reason to consider in the future adding verifiers
as built-in optional part of module loading.

> iwlwifi will stay loaded and sit idle since no opmode will be there to start
> using the hardware. We will keep having the device claimed, and will keep the
> interrupt registered and all that. No WiFi for you, but no harm caused
> either.

Fine by me. Will send follow up simple patches.

  Luis