Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] firmware: split firmware fallback functionality into its own file

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:14:53PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > The firmware fallback code is optional. Split that code out to help
>> > distinguish the fallback functionlity from othere core firmware loader
>> > features. This should make it easier to maintain and review code
>> > changes.
>> >
>> > The reason for keeping the configuration onto a table which is built-in
>> > if you enable firmware loading is so that we can later enable the kernel
>> > after subsequent patches to tweak this configuration, even if the
>> > firmware loader is modular.
>> >
>> > This introduces no functional changes.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/base/Makefile                  |   4 +-
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_fallback.c       | 661 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_fallback.h       |  61 +++
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_fallback_table.c |  29 ++
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_loader.c         | 803 +--------------------------------
>> >  drivers/base/firmware_loader.h         | 115 +++++
>> >  6 files changed, 874 insertions(+), 799 deletions(-)
>> >  create mode 100644 drivers/base/firmware_fallback.c
>> >  create mode 100644 drivers/base/firmware_fallback.h
>> >  create mode 100644 drivers/base/firmware_fallback_table.c
>> >  create mode 100644 drivers/base/firmware_loader.h
>>
>> Does it make sense to have a separate subdirectory for firmware
>> instead? I did this _ stuff with lkdtm and have regretted it. (I'm
>> likely going to make a subdirectory for it this cycle...)
>
> Sure, the only eyesore is that drivers/base/firmware.c what is that for?
>
> drivers/base/firmware_loader/ ok?

Yeah? Seems fine to me. Greg, do you have thoughts on this?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security