On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:27:33AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:43:07AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:26:35AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:08:16AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > > Perhaps it would be easier if I also sent the patch to udev's helper, > >> > > so you could see how I propose handling the userspace change to using > >> > > the new interface? > >> > > >> > As there is no more "udev firmware helper", I don't know what you would > >> > be patching here. Firmware should always be loaded by the kernel > >> > directly, udev isn't involved anyore at all. > >> > > >> > confused, > >> > > >> > greg k-h > >> > >> The kernel _can_ load directly (when the paths are configured correctly), > >> but I'm not sure why you say udev isn't involved any more. It's been like > >> this for years, and even the latest systemd shows the udev rule is still in > >> place: > >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/rules/50-firmware.rules > >> and that the firmware loader is still in the source tree: > >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/udev/udev-builtin-firmware.c > > > > Ah, I thought that I had seen patches to delete this code on the systemd > > mailing list in the past, I didn't realize they hadn't been accepted > > yet. > > > > But, with my current tree, in linux-next, it's really hard to select the > > "external firmware loader" on purpose, as we want people to use the > > in-kernel one if at all possible, and only fall back to the "legacy" > > udev userspace loader if they are running on old userspace systems. > > Heh. Where non-legacy means running a userspace with unaccepted > systemd patches? That's some serious time-travel. :) Don't be so sure, I don't think that all distros enable the firmware option of udev today, so it might be more "real" than you think. > >> Here's the patch for the new interface... > > > > I'd really not like to add a new interface for this model when we are > > trying to delete it entirely. Why not just rely on the in-kernel loader > > instead for this new feature? > > Yeah, I see what you're saying. Obviously if the udev loader is going > to vanish entirely, it makes no sense to add the "fd" interface. I'll > keep the last 3 patches in the series in my tree for backporting > purposes, but since the LSM hook is still useful for origin/content > validation, I'd still like to see those go in. Though it sounds like I > should do that through the security-next tree? > > applied: > doc: fix minor typos in firmware_class README > test: add firmware_class loader test > > hopefully for security-next: > security: introduce kernel_fw_from_file hook > firmware_class: perform new LSM checks > > I'll keep these external for backporting to "legacy" kernels/userspace: > firmware_class: extract start loading logic > firmware_class: add "fd" input file > test: add "fd" firmware loading test to selftests > > Does that look okay? That's fine with me, or I can take the "security-next" patches through my tree, if that makes merging with the other firmware patches in my tree easier (today it's just a line diff, which git can handle easily). I'll go ack that patch now if James wants to pick it up. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
