netdev - RE: [patch net-next 0/9] mlxsw: Support firmware flash

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 May 2017 15:19:48 +0000
From:   "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
To:     Yotam Gigi <yotamg@...lanox.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "idosch@...lanox.com" <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        "mlxsw@...lanox.com" <mlxsw@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [patch net-next 0/9] mlxsw: Support firmware flash

> >>>> Patches 6-8 add the "ethtool -f" and the boot-time firmware upgrade
> >>>> on
> >> the
> >>>> mlxsw spectrum driver.
> >>> When we tried using `ethtool -E' for qed we got burned for trying to
> >>> use
> >> the magic
> >>> value [1]. When we suggested extending it to allow some private data
> >> indications,
> >>> Ben claimed that this entire ethtool infrastructure is a thing of
> >>> the past, and we should try using MTD instead - a claim no one
> bothered to counter.
> >>>
> >>> Creating proprietary file-formats, filling them with metadata and
> >>> complementary driver state-machines could easily overcome the
> >>> original obstacle we faced. But it raises the question of whether
> >>> these APIs are valid or obsolete.
> >> The metadata in our format is needed to allow us to hold several
> >> firmware images for several spectrum silicon variants in one file,
> >> hence the metadata is used by the driver and does not get transferred to
> the device.
> > Understood; Otherwise it would have been 'data' and not 'metadata'.
> >
> >> Our code can only be used to transfer firmware to the device, and
> >> cannot be used to configure the device.
> > Not sure what this refers to? The differences between '-f' and '-E'?
> > Also, assuming you haven't started selling your adapters as persistent
> > memory for storage, what's the difference?
> >
> 
> Sorry, I am not sure I understand. You think that drivers should not
> implement ethtool's flash_device callback anymore? do you have an
> alternative for firmware flash?

That's exactly the question Ben asked in - 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=146514461214421&w=2
Suggesting to use MTD for flash access.

I'm not saying that approach was necessarily the best;
But no one shared any disagreement with it back then.