linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Allow non-default names for IFS image

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: <YssFueUGqzq2WLHa@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 10 Jul 2022 19:00:41 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
Cc:     hdegoede@...hat.com, markgross@...nel.org, ashok.raj@...el.com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Allow non-default names for
 IFS image

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 09:00:11AM -0700, Jithu Joseph wrote:
> Existing implementation limits IFS images to be loaded only from
> a default file-name /lib/firmware/intel/ifs/ff-mm-ss.scan.
> 
> But there are situations where there may be multiple scan files
> that can be run on a particular system stored in /lib/firmware/intel/ifs
> 
> E.g.
> 1. Because test contents are larger than the memory reserved for IFS by BIOS
> 2. To provide increased test coverage
> 3. Custom test files to debug certain specific issues in the field
> 
> Renaming each of these to ff-mm-ss.scan and then loading might be
> possible in some environments. But on systems where /lib is read-only
> this is not a practical solution.
> 
> Modify the semantics of the driver file
> /sys/devices/virtual/misc/intel_ifs_0/reload such that,
> it interprets the input as the filename to be loaded.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
> ---

Also note that this does not follow the required Intel rules for
submitting kernel patches.  Why the rush and circumventing of the normal
process that we have in place for good reasons?

greg k-h