linux-kernel - Re: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file

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: <2ce6dc15-51a8-e59c-26ab-4380cdca6209@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:35:49 +0200
From:   Piotr Chmura <chmooreck@...il.com>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        Robert Schlabbach <robert_s@....net>
Cc:     Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file


W dniu 30.03.2022 o 11:55, Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
> On 29.03.22 21:21, Robert Schlabbach wrote:
>> the patch linked in the bugzilla ticket:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
>> should indeed fix the issue.
> Ahh, the comment mentioning it was added shortly after I sent my mail.
> #regzbot monitor:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
>
> Adding Piotr, the patches' author to the CC, who also replied.
>
> BTW: that patch is afaics missing a Fixes tag specifying the culprit and
> a `Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 5.17.x` tag to make sure it's quickly
> backported to the stable tree, as among others explained here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst
Sorry for my inconvenience. I just fixed my device and wanted to share 
solution with the "world". I'm not familiar with all kernel development 
convention (yet).

>
>> The error was that the rom_id and required
>> fields were swapped in the table, so the non-zero rom_id was taken as a
>> "true" required boolean value, thus incorrectly evaluating that the
>> chip requires a firmware file to operate when in fact it does not.
>> I have tested the patch and found it worked for me. But I do not know
>> how to push this further along:
>> https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/patch/6f84b7f4-3ede-ae55-e99b-a9d4108c80e2@gmail.com/
> Mauro, what's up here? The patch fixes a regression and thus afaics
> should quickly find its way towards mainline to get it into the stable
> tree, as explained in the (bran new) document linked above.
>
> Ciao, Thorsten
>
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. März 2022 um 10:33 Uhr
>> Von: "Thorsten Leemhuis" <regressions@...mhuis.info>
>> An: "Antti Palosaari" <crope@....fi>, "Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>, "Robert Schlabbach" <robert_s@....net>
>> Cc: "regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>, az0123456@....de, "Linux Media Mailing List" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
>> Betreff: Bug 215726 - si2157.c: mention name of the missing firmware file
>> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
>>
>> I noticed a regression report in bugzilla.kernel.org that afaics nobody
>> acted upon since it was reported about a week ago, that's why I decided
>> to forward it to the lists and all people that seemed to be relevant
>> here. To quote from https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215726 :
>>
>>> I get the following error messages when trying to use si2157.ko in linux 5.17:
>>> si2157 13-0060: found a 'Silicon Labs Si2157-A30 ROM 0x50'
>>> si2157 13-0060: Can't continue without a firmware
>>> I did work in linux 5.16.16 without a firmware file. Unfortunately the driver does not tell me the name of the missing firmware file.
>> Could somebody take a look into this? Or was this discussed somewhere
>> else already? Or even fixed?
>>
>>