netdev - Re: pull-request: wireless-next-2023-04-21

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: <87cz3os2wr.fsf@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:43:16 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>,
        "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pull-request: wireless-next-2023-04-21

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:38:17 +0300 Kalle Valo wrote:
>> IIRC we discussed this back in initial rtw88 or rtw89 driver review (not
>> sure which one). At the time I pushed for the current solution to have
>> the initvals in static variables just to avoid any backwards
>> compatibility issues. I agree that the initvals in .c files are ugly but
>> is it worth all the extra effort and complexity to move them outside the
>> kernel? I'm starting to lean towards it's not worth all the extra work.
>
> I don't think it's that much extra work, the driver requires FW
> according to modinfo, anyway, so /lib/firmware is already required.
> And on smaller systems with few hundred MB of RAM it'd be nice to not
> hold all the stuff in kernel memory, I'd think.

Later in this thread Ping explained pretty well the challenges here,
that sums exactly what I'm worried about.

> We have a rule against putting FW as a static table in the driver
> source, right? Or did we abandon that? Isn't this fundamentally similar?

My understanding is that these are just initialisation values for
hardware, not executable code. (Ping, please correct me if I
misunderstood.) So that's why I thought these are ok to have in kernel.
So I took practicality over elegance here.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches