netdev - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net] bnx2x: fix built-in kernel driver load failure

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

Message-ID: <20220317083314.54f360b3@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:33:14 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc:     Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, it+netdev@...gen.mpg.de
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net] bnx2x: fix built-in kernel driver load
 failure

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:31:45 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote:
> >> I think it’s important to document, that the firmware was not present in the
> >> initrd.  
> > 
> > I believe this problem has nothing to do with initrd module/FW but
> > rather a module built in the kernel/vmlinuz (CONFIG_BNX2X=y) itself, 
> > A module load from initrd works fine and can access the initrd FW
> > files present in initrd file system even during the probe. For
> > example, when I had CONFIG_BNX2X=m, it loads the module fine from
> > initrd with FW files present in initrd file system. When I had
> > CONFIG_BNX2X=y, which I believe doesn't install/load module in/from
> > initrd but in kernel (vmlinuz) itself, that's where it can't access
> > the firmware file and cause the load failure.  
> 
> I can only say, that adding the firmware to the initrd worked around the 
> problem on our side with `CONFIG_BNX2X=y`.

Hi Paul, I'd like to ship this one to Linus today. It sounds like it's
okay from functional perspective, can I improve the commit message as
you were suggesting and leave the comment / print improvements to a
later patch?