lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] firmware version management: add firmware_version()
    From
    Date
    Hi Michael,

    > > > > > It would be good if a driver knows which firmware version will be
    > > > > > written to the hardware. I'm talking about external firmware files
    > > > > > claimed by request_firmware().
    > > > > >
    > > > > > We know so many different firmware files for bcm43xx and it becomes
    > > > > > more and more complicated without some firmware version management.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > This patch can create the md5sum of a firmware file. Then it looks into
    > > > > > a table to figure out which version number is assigned to the hashcode.
    > > > > > That table is placed in the driver code and an example for bcm43xx comes
    > > > > > in my next mail. Any comments?
    > > > >
    > > > > why does this have to happen on the kernel side? Isn't it a lot easier
    > > > > and better to let the userspace side of things do this work, and even
    > > > > have a userspace file with the md5->version mapping? Or are there some
    > > > > practical considerations that make that hard to impossible?
    > > >
    > > > I fully agree that we shouldn't put firmware versioning into the kernel
    > > > drivers. The pattern you give to request_firmware() can be mapped to any
    > > > file on the file system. And you also have the link to the device object
    > > > and I prefer you export a sysfs file for the version so that the helper
    > > > application loading the firmware can pick the right file.
    > >
    > > Bcm43xx has no helper application to upload the firmware. This is done
    > > in the driver. It's RAM based hardware without a Flash-ROM. The driver
    > > has to upload the firmware in the init phase after each reset.
    > >
    > > The driver gets a firmware file from /lib/firmware/ without knowing
    > > which version this is. It's not possible to say enable this in the
    > > driver if you find a firmware x and disable that if it's only version
    > > y. That was my motivation to start thinking about firmware versioning.
    > >
    > > But in the meantime I think it's a security issue, too. A driver
    > > should only accept firmware files with certified checksums. I guess it
    > > would be really difficult to enter a machine by firmware hijacking. So,
    > > I'm still in hope that this is only a paranoia on my side. But it's
    > > worth to think about it.
    >
    > I really think drivers should only allow firmware files that are known
    > to work. This should be verified by a hardcoded checksum in the driver.
    > I support Martin's patch.

    this should be done in the driver. So why do you try to enhance the
    firmware_class to do this job. If your driver has special requirements
    for firmware checks, then implement them. I don't see any advantage of
    doing this kind of stuff in firmware_class at the moment.

    Regards

    Marcel


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-09 17:05    [W:0.025 / U:389.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site