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

Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 23:36:50 -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 23:03, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 The existing check is outdated and confuses developers.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?
> 

OK, I get it now. Thanks for correcting me.

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