linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] firmware: split firmware fallback functionality into its own file

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: <CAGXu5j+tFg+rGn5baCFRF5ARwExuD45oRE=dmzB8T84XDL=f-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:33:28 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@...keon.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, pali.rohar@...il.com,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        nbroeking@...com, Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
        stephen.boyd@...aro.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Abhay_Salunke@...l.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        jewalt@...innovations.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] firmware: split firmware fallback functionality
 into its own file

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:14:53PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > The firmware fallback code is optional. Split that code out to help
>> > distinguish the fallback functionlity from othere core firmware loader
>> > features. This should make it easier to maintain and review code
>> > changes.
>> >
>> > The reason for keeping the configuration onto a table which is built-in
>> > if you enable firmware loading is so that we can later enable the kernel
>> > after subsequent patches to tweak this configuration, even if the
>> > firmware loader is modular.
>> >
>> > This introduces no functional changes.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/base/Makefile                  |   4 +-
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_fallback.c       | 661 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_fallback.h       |  61 +++
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_fallback_table.c |  29 ++
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_loader.c         | 803 +--------------------------------
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_loader.h         | 115 +++++
>> >  6 files changed, 874 insertions(+), 799 deletions(-)
>> >  create mode 100644 drivers/base/firmware_fallback.c
>> >  create mode 100644 drivers/base/firmware_fallback.h
>> >  create mode 100644 drivers/base/firmware_fallback_table.c
>> >  create mode 100644 drivers/base/firmware_loader.h
>>
>> Does it make sense to have a separate subdirectory for firmware
>> instead? I did this _ stuff with lkdtm and have regretted it. (I'm
>> likely going to make a subdirectory for it this cycle...)
>
> Sure, the only eyesore is that drivers/base/firmware.c what is that for?
>
> drivers/base/firmware_loader/ ok?

Yeah? Seems fine to me. Greg, do you have thoughts on this?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security