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:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:23:24 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Jacob Keller <>
Cc:, Jiri Pirko <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Michael Chan <>,
        Bin Luo <>,
        Saeed Mahameed <>,
        Leon Romanovsky <>,
        Ido Schimmel <>,
        Danielle Ratson <>
Subject: Re: [net-next v4 2/5] devlink: convert flash_update to use params

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:59:07 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> On 9/9/2020 5:55 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 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 <>
> Hmm. What does _direct do? I guess it means it won't fall back to the
> userspace helper if it can't find the firmware? It looks like MLX
> drivers use it, but others seem to just stick to regular request_firmware.

FWIW _direct() is pretty much meaningless today, I think the kernel
support for non-direct is mostly dropped. Systemd doesn't support it

> This seems like an improvement that we can handle in a follow up series
> either way. Thanks for the review!

Agreed. Too many pending patches for this area already :S

Powered by blists - more mailing lists