linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] firmware: Create firmware upload framework

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: <YZVP1jetd/a+dYyf@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:54:14 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>
Cc:     sudeep.holla@....com, cristian.marussi@....com, ardb@...nel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        trix@...hat.com, lgoncalv@...hat.com, yilun.xu@...el.com,
        hao.wu@...el.com, matthew.gerlach@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] firmware: Create firmware upload framework

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:47:38AM -0800, Russ Weight wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/17/21 10:18 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:00:54AM -0800, Russ Weight wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/17/21 7:15 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 05:13:41PM -0800, Russ Weight wrote:
> >>>> The Firmware Upload class driver provides a common API for uploading
> >>>> firmware files to devices.
> >>> That is exactly what the existing firmware api in the kernel is supposed
> >>> to be accomplishing.
> >>>
> >>> If it is not doing what you need it to do, then you need to document the
> >>> heck out of why it is not, and why you need a different api for this.  I
> >>> do not see that here in this changelog at all :(
> >> This is part of the documentation included later in this patch. I can add
> >> this to the changelog.
> >>
> >> +Some devices load firmware from on-board FLASH when the card initializes.
> >> +These cards do not require the request_firmware framework to load the
> >> +firmware when the card boots, but they to require a utility to allow
> >> +users to update the FLASH contents.
> > There's no requirement that request_firmware only be done at boot time,
> > why not use it at any point in time?
> Calling request_firmware() is not restricted to boot time. But it requires
> a firmware filename under /lib/firmware

Not really, there are many locations it can be in.  See the different
configuration options we have.

But why would you want firmware in another location?

>, and the convention is to specify the
> filename in the kernel config.

That is not a requirement at all.

> I don't see any support for a user to provide a filename at run time
> to be uploaded to a device, and that is the use case that I want to
> support.

If that's the only difference here, please work with the existing
framework to add that tiny thing (i.e. pass in a name) to the current
framework.  Do not create a whole new one please.

> >> When you say "existing firmware api", I'm thinking request_firmware, which
> >> requires that driver names be specified in the kernel config and wants to
> >> load firmware automatically during device initialization.
> > It can be used at any time, why do you think it's restricted to init
> > time?
> >
> > And I do not understand your issue with driver names.
> Sorry - I meant so say "firmware file names"
> 
> In an earlier iteration of this patchset, you pointed out that allowing a user
> to provide a filename for request_firmware() to use was a security issue.

It is crazy, don't you think?

> The use case that I am targeting is to allow a user to provide an image file
> to a device at run time.

That's not a limitation of the existing firmware layer.

thanks,

greg k-h