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: <da39d895-61fc-5ca2-64e0-e31e20e98245@infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 23:03:41 -0800
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.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 1/11/22 22:56, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 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 The existing check is outdated and confuses developers.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).
> 

Hm, /me confused.

How can CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE be =y when MODULE is not defined?

> 
> 
>>
>>> +#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
> 
> 
> 

-- 
~Randy