linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] drm/doc: Document expectation that userspace review looks at kernel uAPI.

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]

Message-Id: <20190424185617.16865-2-eric@anholt.net>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:56:17 -0700
From:   Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
To:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] drm/doc: Document expectation that userspace review looks at kernel uAPI.

The point of this review process is that userspace using the new uAPI
can actually live with the uAPI being provided, and it's hard to know
that without having actually looked into a kernel patch yourself.

Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
---
 Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
index 8e5545dfbf82..298424b98d99 100644
--- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
@@ -85,7 +85,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements:
 - The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of that
   userspace project. For e.g. mesa this means piglit testcases and review on the
   mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually gets the
-  job done.
+  job done.  The userspace-side reviewer should also provide at least an
+  Acked-by on the kernel uAPI patch indicating that they've looked at how the
+  kernel side is implementing the new feature being used.
 
 - The userspace patches must be against the canonical upstream, not some vendor
   fork. This is to make sure that no one cheats on the review and testing
-- 
2.20.1