linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check

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: <CAK7LNARiDFpphJrhk5q00d5sSPWAQ2mMLu8Z2YP0Xwk=3WGt3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 15:56:39 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware_loader: simplfy builtin or module check

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:37 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/11/22 18:34, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > The existing check is outdated and confuses developers. Use the
> > already existing IS_ENABLED() defined on kconfig.h which makes
> > the intention much clearer.
> >
> > Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> > Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
>
> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
>
> Thanks.
>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/firmware.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/firmware.h b/include/linux/firmware.h
> > index 3b057dfc8284..fa3493dbe84a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/firmware.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/firmware.h
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static inline bool firmware_request_builtin(struct firmware *fw,
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER) || (defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE) && defined(MODULE))
>
> The "defined(MODULE)" part wasn't needed here. :)



It _is_ needed.

This seems to be equivalent to IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_FW_LOADER),
not IS_ENABLE(CONFIG_FW_LOADER).



>
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FW_LOADER)
> >  int request_firmware(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
> >                    struct device *device);
> >  int firmware_request_nowarn(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name,
>
> --
> ~Randy



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada