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  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]
Date:   Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:55:45 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Bin Luo <luobin9@...wei.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        Danielle Ratson <danieller@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v4 2/5] devlink: convert flash_update to use params
 structure

On Wed,  9 Sep 2020 15:26:50 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> The devlink core recently gained support for checking whether the driver
> supports a flash_update parameter, via `supported_flash_update_params`.
> However, parameters are specified as function arguments. Adding a new
> parameter still requires modifying the signature of the .flash_update
> callback in all drivers.
> 
> Convert the .flash_update function to take a new `struct
> devlink_flash_update_params` instead. By using this structure, and the
> `supported_flash_update_params` bit field, a new parameter to
> flash_update can be added without requiring modification to existing
> drivers.
> 
> As before, all parameters except file_name will require driver opt-in.
> Because file_name is a necessary field to for the flash_update to make
> sense, no "SUPPORTED" bitflag is provided and it is always considered
> valid. All future additional parameters will require a new bit in the
> supported_flash_update_params bitfield.

I keep thinking we should also make the core do the
request_firmware_direct(). What else is the driver gonna do with the file name..

But I don't want to drag your series out so:

Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists