netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] mlxsw: Make MLXSW_SP1_FWREV

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]

Message-ID: <wiha7o7qha9.fsf@dev-r-vrt-156.mtr.labs.mlnx>
Date:   Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:14:06 +0300
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jiri@...lanox.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] mlxsw: Make MLXSW_SP1_FWREV_MINOR a hard requirement

Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:04:17AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> But doesn't that mean you reflash the device with the minimum version,
>> when in fact there could be a much newer version in /lib/firmware?
>
> No, because we always enforce the latest version we post to
> linux-firmware. We try to keep firmware updates at a minimum, so if we
> decided to post a new version it's either because the driver now
> requires a feature from this version (which makes older versions
> incompatible) or because a critical bug was fixed in that version.

If you consider the case of an older driver and a recent FW update that
the driver didn't know about, then yes, such FW would be ignored. You
can flash it by hand of course (ethtool -f), as long as it's on the
right branch.

Petr