linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params

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, 13 Jun 2017 12:31:04 +0200
From:   Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, wagi@...om.org,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, yi1.li@...ux.intel.com,
        atull@...nsource.altera.com, moritz.fischer@...us.com,
        pmladek@...e.com, johannes.berg@...el.com,
        emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com, luciano.coelho@...el.com,
        kvalo@...eaurora.org, luto@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        takahiro.akashi@...aro.org, dhowells@...hat.com, pjones@...hat.com,
        hdegoede@...hat.com, alan@...ux.intel.com, tytso@....edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params

On 2017-06-13 11:05, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:39:33PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> As the firmware API evolves we keep extending functions with more 
>> arguments.
>> Stop this nonsense by proving an extensible data structure which can 
>> be used
>> to represent both user parameters and private internal parameters.
> 
> Let's take a simple C function interface and make it a more complex
> data-driven interface that is impossible to understand and obviously
> understand how it is to be used and works!
> 
> :(
> 
> Seriously, why?  Why are we extending any of this at all?  This series
> adds a ton of new "features" and complexity, but for absolutely no 
> gain.
> 
> Oh, I take it back, you removed 29 lines from the iwlwifi driver.
> 
> That's still not worth it at all, you have yet to sell me on this whole
> complex beast.  I can't see why we need it, and if I, one of the few
> people who thinks they actually understand this kernel interface, can't
> see it, how can you sell it to someone else?
> 
> Sorry, but no, I'm still not going to take this series until you show
> some _REAL_ benefit for it.

FWIW I saw (or maybe still see?) a need to extend request_firmware* API 
to
allow silencing a warning if firmware file is missing.

I even sent a trivial patch adding support for this:
[PATCH V4 1/2] firmware: add more flexible request_firmware_async 
function
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9588787/
(I think it still applies) but it got rejected due to Luis's big rework.

To be honest after seeing this big & more complex driver data API I just
gave up and decided I don't care about false problem reports that much 
:(