linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 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]

Message-ID: <1501739717.15969.26.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 05:55:18 +0000
From:   "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     "kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
CC:     "pieter-paul.giesberts@...adcom.com" 
        <pieter-paul.giesberts@...adcom.com>,
        "bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        "arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com" <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
        "hante.meuleman@...adcom.com" <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "moritz.fischer@...us.com" <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
        "pjones@...hat.com" <pjones@...hat.com>,
        "wagi@...om.org" <wagi@...om.org>,
        "pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "atull@...nel.org" <atull@...nel.org>,
        "yi1.li@...ux.intel.com" <yi1.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        "wright.feng@...ress.com" <wright.feng@...ress.com>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "takahiro.akashi@...aro.org" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "rafal@...ecki.pl" <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
        "Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        "zajec5@...il.com" <zajec5@...il.com>,
        "tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
        "dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
        "chi-hsien.lin@...ress.com" <chi-hsien.lin@...ress.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "franky.lin@...adcom.com" <franky.lin@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] firmware: add more flexible
 request_firmware_async function

On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 08:23 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > > +int request_firmware_nowait(struct module *module, bool uevent,
> > > +			    const char *name, struct device *device, gfp_t gfp,
> > > +			    void *context,
> > > +			    void (*cont)(const struct firmware *fw, void *context))
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned int opt_flags = FW_OPT_FALLBACK |
> > > +		(uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER);
> > > +
> > > +	return __request_firmware_nowait(module, opt_flags, name, device, gfp,
> > > +					 context, cont);
> > > +}
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(request_firmware_nowait);
> > >  
> > > +int __request_firmware_async(struct module *module, const char *name,
> > > +			     struct firmware_opts *fw_opts, struct device *dev,
> > > +			     void *context,
> > > +			     void (*cont)(const struct firmware *fw, void *context))
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned int opt_flags = FW_OPT_UEVENT;
> > 
> > This exposes a long issue. Think -- why do we want this enabled by default? Its
> > actually because even though the fallback stuff is optional and can be, the uevent
> > internal flag *also* provides caching support as a side consequence only. We
> > don't want to add a new API without first cleaning up that mess.
> > 
> > This is a slipery slope and best to clean that up before adding any new API.
> > 
> > That and also Greg recently stated he would like to see at least 3 users of
> > a feature before adding it. Although I think that's pretty arbitrary, and
> > considering that request_firmware_into_buf() only has *one* user -- its what
> > he wishes.
> 
> ath10k at least needs a way to silence the warning for missing firmware
> and I think iwlwifi also.

Yes, iwlwifi needs to silence the warning.  It the feature (only one,
really) that I've been waiting for.

--
Luca.