| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9DEF5678E5044F80AEBAD3FE738EA980@realtek.com.tw> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:41:08 +0800 From: hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com> To: 'Ben Hutchings' <ben@...adent.org.uk> CC: <dwmw2@...radead.org>, <romieu@...zoreil.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [linux-firmware v2 1/2] rtl_nic: update firmware forRTL8111E-VL > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:ben@...adent.org.uk] > > +File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw (Version: rtl8168e-3_0.0.1) > [...] > > Please don't write the version in yet another way. It should be: > I just think if someone replaces the firmware with another one, I could check the firmware through the information without checking the ram data. For example, someone renames the rtl8168f-1.fw to rtl8168e-3.fw and replaces the original rtl8168e-3.fw. Through ethtool to show the version of the firmware, I could know the firmware is invalid. If the version only contain the value 0.0.1, I must compare the binary file to find out the result. Do you think it is unnecessary to add this information? I could remove the relative part if you think so. > File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw > Version: 0.0.1 > > Or, if you insist on duplicating the name in the version: > > File: rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw > Version: rtl8168e-3_0.0.1 > Best Regards, Hayes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists