linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:23:36 +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 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. When do you estimate the script will land upstream?
So we can make sure upgrade coccinelle before that time.

Thanks,
Fengguang