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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230501150803.6c4963ac@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 1 May 2023 15:08:03 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: wireless-next-2023-04-21

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:43:16 +0300 Kalle Valo wrote:
> > 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.

Alright, I'll try to make someone else do this outside of wireless,
and come back with real life experience disproving the concerns :)