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]

Date:   Sat, 21 Apr 2018 08:32:00 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>,
        ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] firmware: add functions to load firmware without
 warnings v4

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> What was the objection to using parameters for this? i.e. something
> like the gfp flags, but have a behavior flag FW_RQ_NOWAIT,
> FW_RQ_NOWARN, etc?

The objection was that the patches that I think Luis refers to

 (a) passed in a union of random arguments

 (b) changed all the users, even the ones that didn't want to be changed.

they were nasty and illegible and pointless.

Using some single flag field for an extended function, and leaving the
existing functions alone so that you don't have to convert existing
users - that would have been fine. That's not what was tried and
rejected.

              Linus