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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:33:07 -0700
From:   Jacob Keller <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
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 9/10/2020 2:23 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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
> either.

Ah, I see. So basically using either doesn't really impact anything
because everything will just do the direct method and fail otherwise? Ok.

>> 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
Yea. I'm happy to wait a bit for this to settle and then look at it
again in a few weeks.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists