Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:26:21 +0900
From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, wagi@monom.org,
        dwmw2@infradead.org, rafal@milecki.pl, arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com,
        rjw@rjwysocki.net, yi1.li@linux.intel.com, atull@opensource.altera.com,
        moritz.fischer@ettus.com, pmladek@suse.com,
        emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com, luciano.coelho@intel.com,
        kvalo@codeaurora.org, luto@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, dhowells@redhat.com, pjones@redhat.com,
        hdegoede@redhat.com, alan@linux.intel.com, tytso@mit.edu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params
Message-ID: <20170620012619.GC4820@linaro.org>
Mail-Followup-To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, wagi@monom.org,
        dwmw2@infradead.org, rafal@milecki.pl, arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com,
        rjw@rjwysocki.net, yi1.li@linux.intel.com,
        atull@opensource.altera.com, moritz.fischer@ettus.com,
        pmladek@suse.com, emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com,
        luciano.coelho@intel.com, kvalo@codeaurora.org, luto@kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, pjones@redhat.com, hdegoede@redhat.com,
        alan@linux.intel.com, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20170605213314.GR8951@wotan.suse.de>
 <20170605213937.26215-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20170605213937.26215-2-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20170613090548.GA31421@kroah.com>
 <20170613194011.GI27288@wotan.suse.de>
 <20170617193815.GI2974@kroah.com>
 <1497857596.2259.3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <20170619194107.GI21846@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20170619194107.GI21846@wotan.suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1820
Lines: 41

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.  Heck, 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].

+1
I always appreciate any comments from those who are for and against
my patch (or firmware signing in general) as well.

-Takahiro AKASHI


> [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170526030609.1414-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org
> 
>  Luis