linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] partitions/efi: add support for uImage.FIT sub-partitions

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: <Y3XN+fDTjHz09qEE@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 22:00:25 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        Michal Orzel <michalorzel.eng@...il.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] partitions/efi: add support for uImage.FIT
 sub-partitions

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:19:10AM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote:
> While weirdness is certainly subjective, uImage.FIT is not just a
> random image format but used by a great majority of headless embedded
> Linux devices out there. It's the default image format of many of the
> SDKs distributed by chip vendors such as Allwinner, Marvell, MediaTek,
> NXP, Qualcomm/Atheros, ...

"Look see, my weird format is used by all these companies building
crappy SOCs, it is not weird.."

> Please let me know if this sounds acceptable, so I won't put effort
> into implementing something which will then be rejected again after 5
> iterations on the mailing list for reasons which could have been
> expressed from the beginning. An RFC for this series was posted on
> 2022-04-25 [1], I wouldn't have worked months to fix all requests of
> other maintainers and tested it on a variety of different hardware
> knowing that the whole approach will be NACK'ed...

If people ignore something that is obviously broken they might just hope
for it to go away, becaue often it does.