linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware

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:   Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:57:00 +0100
From:   Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To:     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>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER" 
        <brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async function

On 23 February 2017 at 19:30, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
>
> So far we got only one function for loading firmware asynchronously:
> request_firmware_nowait. It didn't allow much customization of firmware
> loading process - there is only one bool uevent argument. Moreover this
> bool also controls user helper in an unclear way.
>
> Resolve this problem by adding one internally shared  function that
> allows specifying any flags manually.
>
> This implementation:
> 1) Allows keeping old request_firmware_nowait API unchanged
> 2) Doesn't require adjusting / rewriting current drivers
> 3) Minimizes risk of regressions
> 4) Adds new function for drivers that need more control over loading a
>    firmware.
>
> The new function takes options struct pointer as an argument to make
> further improvements possible (without any big reworks).
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> ---
> V3: Don't expose all FW_OPT_* flags.
>     As Luis noted we want a struct so add struct firmware_opts for real
>     flexibility.
>     Thank you Luis for your review!
>
> Ming/Luis/Greg: assuming this gets a positive review, could someone of you pick
> this patchset?

Ping. I hope it's relatively simple and non-intrusive change with a
proper design now.

Is there some who could pick this small patchset?