linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] firmware: print firmware name on fallback path

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180512090619.GL27853@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Sat, 12 May 2018 09:06:19 +0000
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        alexdeucher@...il.com, christian.koenig@....com,
        arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, hdegoede@...hat.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] firmware: print firmware name on fallback path

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03:52AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> (sorry for the delay, this got buried in my inbox)
> 
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 04:12:02PM -0400, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
> >> Previously, one could assume the firmware name from the preceding
> >> message: "Direct firmware load for {name} failed with error %d".
> >> 
> >> However, with the new firmware_request_nowarn() entrypoint, the message
> >> outlined above will not always be printed.
> >
> > I though the whole point was to not print an error message. What if
> > we want later to disable this error message? This would prove a bit
> > pointless.
> >
> > Let's discuss the exact semantics desired here. Why would only the
> > fallback be desirable here?
> >
> > Andres, Kalle?
> 
> So from ath10k point of view we do not want to have any messages printed
> when calling firmware_request_nowarn(). The warnings get users really
> confused when ath10k is checking if an optional firmware file is
> available or not.

I figured, that is the intended functionality now.

  Luis