[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160714033505.GA26723@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:35:05 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: ming.lei@...onical.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mmarek@...e.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
markivx@...eaurora.org, stephen.boyd@...aro.org,
zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, broonie@...nel.org, tiwai@...e.de,
johannes@...solutions.net, chunkeey@...glemail.com,
hauke@...ke-m.de, jwboyer@...oraproject.org,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, jslaby@...e.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...capital.net,
rpurdie@...ys.net, j.anaszewski@...sung.com,
Abhay_Salunke@...l.com, Julia.Lawall@...6.fr,
Gilles.Muller@...6.fr, nicolas.palix@...g.fr, teg@...m.no,
dhowells@...hat.com, martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com,
nbd@....name, mark.rutland@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com, dev@...sin.me, kvalo@...eaurora.org,
Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 05:08:12AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:23:36AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 04:15:01AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 07:52:07AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> >>Hi Luis,
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:56:44AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >>>On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:54:16PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >>>>The firmware API has had some issues a while ago, some of this is
>> >>>>not well documented, and its still hard to grasp. This documents
>> >>>>some of these issues, adds SmPL grammar rules to enable us to hunt
>> >>>>for issues, and annotations to help us with our effort to finally
>> >>>>compartamentalize that pesky usermode helper.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Previously this was just one patch, the grammar rule to help
>> >>>>find request firmware API users on init or probe, this series
>> >>>>extends that effort with usermode helper grammar rules, and some
>> >>>>annotations and documentation on the firmware_class driver to
>> >>>>avoid further issues. Documenting the usermode helper and making
>> >>>>it clear why we cannot remove it is important for analysis for
>> >>>>the next series which adds the new flexible sysdata firmware API.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>This series depends on the coccicheck series which enables
>> >>>>annotations on coccinelle patches to require a specific
>> >>>>version of coccinelle [0], as such coordination with Michal is
>> >>>>in order.
>> >>>
>> >>>Michal is out until July 11, and upon further thought such coordination
>> >>>is not need, the annotation is in place as comments and as such
>> >>>merging this now won't have any negative effects other than the version
>> >>>check. Also the patches in question for the coccicheck change are all
>> >>>acked now and I expect them to be merged anyway.
>> >>>
>> >>>Which tree should firmware changes go through ?
>> >>
>> >>>>This series is also further extended next with the new sydata
>> >>>>API, the full set of changes is available on my linux-next tree [1].
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Perhaps now a good time to discuss -- if 0-day should enable the rule
>> >>>>scripts/coccinelle/api/request_firmware-usermode.cocci to be called on
>> >>>>every 0-day iteration, it runs rather fast and it should help police
>> >>>>against avoiding futher explicit users of the usermode helper.
>> >>>
>> >>>And if we are going to merge this anyone oppose enabling hunting
>> >>>for further explicit users of the usermode helper using grammar through
>> >>>0-day ?
>> >>
>> >>When *.cocci scripts lands upstream they'll be auto picked up by the
>> >>0-day bot to guard new patches/commits.
>> >
>> >Great thanks!
>> >
>> >>Are there further steps 0-day should do for request_firmware-upstream.cocci?
>> >
>> >It just requires coccinelle >= 1.0.5.
>>
>> That looks easy.
>
>Nice!
>
>> When do you estimate the script will land upstream?
>
>Well, this series has gone by a while now without any complaints, so
>I was poking to see if they can be merged now.
OK.
>> So we can make sure upgrade coccinelle before that time.
>
>There is another series which modernizes coccicheck [0] for which I just poked
>at as a well [1], one change which may be of importance to you is groks the
>Requires: tag on top of an SmPL patch, with that we simply just skip an SmPL
>patch if the version of coccinelle is older than the one specified, with that
>in place you can just upgrade when you want -- you'd just gain support for more
>SmPL patches when you do. Without that coccinelle would not work (fail) on the
>SmPL patch when tried. For this reason I originally had suggested perhaps
>this series should be carried by Michal.
>
>[0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1467238499-10889-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org
>[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160713214539.GE6239@wotan.suse.de
It's glad to know these improvements. We'll watch their progress and
keep up in time. :)
Thanks,
Fengguang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists