Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params

From: AKASHI Takahiro
Date: Mon Jun 19 2017 - 21:26:49 EST

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:41:07PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:33:16AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-06-17 at 21:38 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > But we don't accept kernel patches for some mythical future option
> > > that might be happening some time in the future.ÂÂHeck, I'm still not
> > > convinced that firmware signing isn't anything more than just some
> > > snakeoil in the first place!
> >
> > I for one really want the "firmware" signing, because I want to load
> > the regulatory database through this API, and
> This was my original goal as well... and it was also one of the reasons why
> the API name change would be much better reflective of future possible uses.
> > But honestly, I've been waiting for years for that now and started
> > looking at what it would take to hand-implement that on top of the
> > existing firmware API. Probably not all that much.
> I had proposed changes to do just this long ago, without any new *API*, so we'd
> support firmware signing just as we do with module signing. Simple!
> It was during these discussions that we realized we actually *wanted* to have
> the option to always specify requests with specific signing requirements from
> the start, as such a flexible API became a prerequisite and so I prioritized
> that work first.
> Lets not ignore previous work and prior discussions then, the last effort on this
> front was by AKASHI, and it'd be greatly appreciated if the topic of firmware
> signing was specifically addressed on that thread there [0].

I always appreciate any comments from those who are for and against
my patch (or firmware signing in general) as well.

-Takahiro AKASHI

> [0]
> Luis