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]
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:29:56 +1000
From:   Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To:     Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Wireless List <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        "dri-devel@...ts.sf.net" <dri-devel@...ts.sf.net>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: driver-api: firmware: add driver firmware guidelines.

> > +* Firmware should be versioned with at least a major/minor version. It
> > +  is suggested that the firmware files in linux-firmware be named with
> > +  some device specific name, and just the major version. The
> > +  major/minor/patch versions should be stored in a header in the
> > +  firmware file for the driver to detect any non-ABI fixes/issues. The
> > +  firmware files in linux-firmware should be overwritten with the newest
> > +  compatible major version. Newer major version firmware should remain
> > +  compatible with all kernels that load that major number.
>
> would symbolic links be acceptable in the linux-firmware.git where
> the <fmw>_<major>.bin is a sym link to <fwm>_<major>.<minor>.bin
>
> or having the <fwm>_<major>.bin really to be the overwritten every minor
> update?

I don't think providing multiple minor versions of fw in
linux-firmware is that interesting.
Like if the major is the same, surely you always want the newer ones.
As long as the
ABI doesn't break. Otherwise we are just wasting disk space with fws
nobody will be using.

Dave.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists