netdev - RE: [linux-firmware v2 1/2] rtl_nic: update firmware forRTL8111E-VL

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:	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:46:18 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
Cc:	dwmw2@...radead.org, romieu@...zoreil.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [linux-firmware v2 1/2] rtl_nic: update firmware forRTL8111E-VL

On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:41 +0800, hayeswang wrote:
> 
> > -----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.
[...]

You're talking about the version string inside the firmware file.  I see
the value of including the name there.  However, in the WHENCE file it
is redundant.

But I really don't care that much.

Ben.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)