linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] firmware: add functions to load firmware without warnings v4

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: <20180421144911.GV14440@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:49:11 +0200
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alexdeucher@...il.com,
        ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com, kvalo@...eaurora.org,
        arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] firmware: add functions to load firmware without
 warnings v4

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 04:32:06PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:33:03AM -0400, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
> > @@ -755,10 +779,11 @@ static void firmware_request_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * firmware_request_nowait() - asynchronous version of firmware_request
> > + * firmware_request_nowait2() - asynchronous version of firmware_request
> >   * @module: module requesting the firmware
> >   * @uevent: sends uevent to copy the firmware image if this flag
> >   *	is non-zero else the firmware copy must be done manually.
> > + * @warn: enable warnings
> >   * @name: name of firmware file
> >   * @device: device for which firmware is being loaded
> >   * @gfp: allocation flags
> > @@ -778,8 +803,8 @@ static void firmware_request_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> >   *		- can't sleep at all if @gfp is GFP_ATOMIC.
> >   **/
> >  int
> > -firmware_request_nowait(
> > -	struct module *module, bool uevent,
> > +firmware_request_nowait2(
> > +	struct module *module, bool uevent, bool warn,
> >  	const char *name, struct device *device, gfp_t gfp, void *context,
> >  	void (*cont)(const struct firmware *fw, void *context))
> >  {
> > @@ -799,7 +824,8 @@ firmware_request_nowait(
> >  	fw_work->context = context;
> >  	fw_work->cont = cont;
> >  	fw_work->opt_flags = FW_OPT_NOWAIT |
> > -		(uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER);
> > +		(uevent ? FW_OPT_UEVENT : FW_OPT_USERHELPER) |
> > +		(warn ? 0 : FW_OPT_NO_WARN);
> >  
> >  	if (!uevent && fw_cache_is_setup(device, name)) {
> >  		kfree_const(fw_work->name);
> > @@ -818,6 +844,24 @@ firmware_request_nowait(
> >  	schedule_work(&fw_work->work);
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(firmware_request_nowait2);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * firmware_request_nowait() - compatibility version of firmware_request_nowait2
> > + *
> > + * This is equivalent to calling firmware_request_nowait2 with warnings enabled.
> > + *
> > + * Refer to firmware_request_nowait2 for further details.
> > + **/
> > +int
> > +firmware_request_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))
> > +{
> > +	return firmware_request_nowait2(module, uevent, true, name, device,
> > +					gfp, context, cont);
> > +}
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(firmware_request_nowait);
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> 
> Ugh this is precisely the type of naming issue I predicted *years ago*
> about the unflexibility of the naming scheme we used. Greg, since you had
> sent us this rabbit hole, any name preference here? Please review what is
> proposed and also suggest a scheme which you do prefer. I'm done with
> the bikeshedding and just want to move on, but in a way that scales.

I'll side for now with Kalle's suggestion of having:

firmware_request_nowait_nowarn()

as nasty as it may seem. And this is just because we embarked on
the path to not have parameters passed to modify the calls site.

  Luis