Binary blob: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:44, 29 March 2022

Revision as of 01:48, 30 March 2022

Line 1:

{{Redirect|Binary blob|the database data type|Binary large object}}

{{short description|ProprietaryClosed-source device driver, often published only in the form of binary code}}

A '''proprietary device driver''' is a closed-source [[device driver]] released under a [[proprietary license]], often published only in [[binary code]]. In the context of [[free and open-source software|free (libre) and open-source software]], a [[Proprietary software|proprietary]] device driver is referred to as a '''blob''' or '''binary blob'''. The term usually refers to a proprietary [[Loadable kernel module|kernel module]] [[Linker (computing)|loaded]] into the [[Kernel (computer science)|kernel]] of an open-source [[operating system]], although blobs can be included as hexadecimal arrays in source code, as some are in the Linux kernel, and is sometimes also applied to code running outside the kernel, such as system [[firmware]] images, [[microcode]] updates, or [[User space|userland]] programs.<ref>{{cite web

| url = https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE1NDc

| title = Coreboot: Replacing Intel's Binary Video BIOS Blob

Line 52:

}}</ref>

== Free/Libre and openOpen source operating systems ==

Some [[Free Software Foundation|FSF]]-approved projects strive to provide a [[Free software movement|free]] operating system and will remove all binary blobs when no documentation for hardware or [[source code]] for device drivers and all applicable firmware is available; such projects include [[Linux-libre]] kernel packaging from [[FSFLA]], [[Parabola (software)|Parabola]], [[Devuan]], [[Trisquel]], and [[LibreCMC]].{{r|gnu/free-distros}} However, the vast majority of open-source projects make a distinction between binary-only device drivers (blobs) and binary-only firmware (not considered blobs{{r|kerneltrap/6497|p=...|q=Firmwares are not considered blobs}}), allowing for certain proprietary firmware to be freely distributed as part of their kernels, and, to the disagreement of some core contributors, also support the use of proprietary device drivers that are distributed externally, providing internal compatibility interfaces for such proprietary drivers and userspace components to work with their system.{{r|f-aac|f-aacraid}} Projects following this policy include the [[Linux kernel]] itself, [[NetBSD]], [[FreeBSD]], [[DragonFly BSD]], and most [[Linux distribution]]s.<ref name="bsdinterview">{{cite web | url = http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml?tid=8&tid=2 | title = BSD cognoscenti on Linux | access-date = 2006-07-07 | last = Matzan | first = Jem | date = 15 June 2005 | publisher = NewsForge | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060323022626/http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml?tid=8&tid=2 | archive-date = 23 March 2006 }} See Christos Zoulas's response to "Is sharing between Free/Open/NetBSD and the Linux kernel a common occurrence? And if so, does it go both ways?"</ref> Some of these projects do provide options for building the system without proprietary firmware, thus excluding sourceless microcode on demand.<ref name=f-sourceless-ucode>{{cite web |url= http://bxr.su/f/tools/build/options/WITHOUT_SOURCELESS_UCODE |title= build/options/WITHOUT_SOURCELESS_UCODE |website= BSD Cross Reference |publisher= [[FreeBSD]] |date= 2012-02-04}}</ref>

The [[OpenBSD]] project has a notable policy of not only not accepting any binary device drivers into its source tree, but also officially not supporting any third-party proprietary device driver components on its platform, either;{{r|lyrics-38|p=38...|q=we refuse to accept our users being forced into depending on vendor binaries}} citing not only the potential for undetectable or irreparable security flaws, but also the encroachment onto the openness and freedom of its software.<ref name="deraadt_interview_200605">{{citation

Line 73:

In the [[Linux kernel]] development community, [[Linus Torvalds]] has made strong statements on the issue of binary-only modules, asserting: "I ''refuse'' to even consider tying my hands over some binary-only module", and continuing: "I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://lwn.net/1999/0211/a/lt-binary.html|title=a/lt-binary|work=lwn.net}}</ref> In 2008, 176 Linux kernel developers signed a ''Position Statement on Linux Kernel Modules'' that stated "We, the undersigned Linux kernel developers, consider any closed-source Linux kernel module or driver to be harmful and undesirable... We have repeatedly found them to be detrimental to Linux users, businesses, and the greater Linux ecosystem."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://lwn.net/Articles/287056/|title=A position statement on Linux Kernel Modules|date=June 2008|author=Greg Kroah-Hartman|author-link=Greg Kroah-Hartman|publisher=[[The Linux Foundation]]}}</ref> The Linux kernel maintainer [[Greg Kroah-Hartman]] has stated that it is illegal to redistribute closed source modules for the [[GNU General Public License|GNU General Public License-licensed]] Linux kernel.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html|author=Greg Kroah-Hartman|author-link=Greg Kroah-Hartman|publisher=[[Linux Symposium]]|title=Myths, Lies, and Truths about the Linux kernel|year=2006}}</ref>

However, the Linux kernel contains proprietaryclosed-source firmware required by various device drivers.{{r|gnu/free-sys-d-g--nonfree-fw|q1=Nonfree Firmware|gnu/common-d}} [[Alexandre Oliva]], the maintainer of [[Linux-libre]], a version of the Linux kernel that removesattempts to remove all binary blobs, including sourceless microcode, wrote in 2011: "Linux hasn't been Free Software since 1996, when Mr Torvalds accepted the first pieces of non-Free Software in the distributions of Linux he has published since 1991. Over these years, while this kernel grew by a factor of 14, the amount of non-Free firmware required by Linux drivers grew by an alarming factor of 83."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/anuncio/2010-03-Linux-2.6.33-libre.en|title=::[FSFLA]:: Take your freedom back, with Linux-2.6.33-libre|work=fsfla.org}}</ref>

Most of the drivers for [[mobile device]]s running the [[Android (OS)|Android operating system]] are shipped in binary and are linked against a specific version of the Linux kernel. This makes it very hard to upgrade a kernel version because it may require [[reverse-engineering]], reimplementing the proprietary device drivers as free software, creating and debugging wrappers, [[binary patch]]ing, or a combination of these steps, all of which implies that legacy devices will never get the latest Android version.{{citation needed|date=March 2019}}

Line 133:

== Device firmware ==

{{main|Firmware|Microcode}}

Some forms of device [[firmwareFirmware]] areis the software required by the onboard [[microcontroller]]s inthat certainaccompany some hardware., The [[OpenBSD]] projectis doesgenerally not consider such firmware, if it is proprietary,considered to be a binary blobsblob.{{r|kerneltrap/4118|gnu/common-d|p2=BSD|kerneltrap/6497|p3=...|q3=Firmwares are not considered blobs}} In many devices, firmware is stored in [[non-volatile]] onboard [[flash memory]], but to decrease costs and ease upgrades, some devices contain only [[static RAM]] and require the host operating system to upload firmware each time they are connected (especially [[USB]] devices). Although the firmware is thus present in the operating system driver, it is merely copied to the device and not executed by the CPU, removing concerns about extra security flaws compared to what's already possible with a [[DMA attack]] even if the firmware was already stored within the device at all times. The OpenBSD project accepts binary firmware/[[microcode]] images and will redistribute these images if the license permits;<ref name="kerneltrap/4118">{{cite web |title=OpenBSD Works To Open Wireless Chipsets |date=November 2, 2004 |publisher=KernelTrap |url=http://kerneltrap.org/node/4118 |access-date=2006-06-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060620051155/http://kerneltrap.org/node/4118 |archive-date=2006-06-20 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://openbsd.su/src/sys/dev/microcode/ |title=/sys/dev/microcode/ |work= [[OpenBSD]] }}</ref> if free and unconditional redistribution is not permitted by the vendor, the machine instructions on fetching these images may be provided in the [[OpenBSD ports|ports]] tree (which precludes some encumbered wireless devices (e.g., Intel Wireless) from being available during the initial install).<ref name=o-ports>{{cite web |url= http://openbsd.su/ports/sysutils/firmware |title=sysutils/firmware |work= [[OpenBSD ports]]}}</ref>

== BIOS and UEFI==

[[File:Coreboot+seaBIOS+on-x60.JPG|thumb|upright|[[SeaBIOS]], an open-source implementation of BIOS, running as coreboot payload on a Lenovo [[ThinkPad]] X60]]

The [[BIOS]], which functions as a [[bootloader]] and supports legacy [[real mode]] applications, is a crucial component of many [[IBM-compatible]] computers. The BIOS can be a security [[Backdoor (computing)|backdoor]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/vpro/vpro-technology-general.html |title=Intel vPro Technology |publisher=Intel.com |date=2012-05-14 |access-date=2014-04-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.absolute.com/en/partners/bios-compatibility.aspx |title=BIOS & Firmware Compatibility |publisher=Absolute.com |access-date=2014-04-10}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=April 2014}} In the late 1990s work started on EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) with the objective to move legacy BIOS to a modern interface with a modular driver model. EFI is proprietaryclosed source and was eventually adopted by many industry leading hardware manufacturers as [[UEFI]] (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface). The EDK (EFI Development Kit) was developed to assist EFI firmware development projects.<ref name="Apress">{{cite book |author=Vincent Zimmer |author2=Jiming Sun |author3=Marc Jones |author4=Stefan Reinauer |date= 2015 |title= Embedded Firmware Solutions: Development Best Practices for the Internet of Things |publisher= Apress |isbn= 9781484200704 | page = 121}}</ref>

Also in the late 1990s, the [[coreboot]] project was started to create an open source alternative to legacy BIOS from scratch.<ref name="Apress"/> The coreboot developer community organises around [[Stefan Reinauer]] and is led by firmware developers with commit rights.<ref>{{cite book |author=Vincent Zimmer |author2=Jiming Sun |author3=Marc Jones |author4=Stefan Reinauer |date= 2015 |title= Embedded Firmware Solutions: Development Best Practices for the Internet of Things |publisher= Apress |isbn= 9781484200704 | page = 61}}</ref> Despite proprietaryclosed source binary firmware having been at the heart of the [[x86]] architecture coreboot only incorporates the few proprietary binaries that are necessary to provide users with a base level hardware support.<ref>{{cite book |author=Vincent Zimmer |author2=Jiming Sun |author3=Marc Jones |author4=Stefan Reinauer |date= 2015 |title= Embedded Firmware Solutions: Development Best Practices for the Internet of Things |publisher= Apress |isbn= 9781484200704 | page = 65}}</ref> A completely [[freeopen software]]source projectalternative which releasesto BIOS and UEFI firmware is [[Librebootlibreboot]], which was promoted by the [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html|title=Campaign for Free BIOS|publisher=Free Software Foundation|date=2006-11-29|access-date=2007-01-02}}</ref>

== See also ==