linux-kernel - Re: [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: <20190521104734.2d8853ac@eldfell.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 10:47:34 +0300
From:   Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/doc: Document expectation that userspace review
 looks at kernel uAPI.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:36:36 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:56:17AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > 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.  
> 
> Answers a question that just recently came up on merging new kms
> properties.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>

Hi,

for the record, I personally will not be able to provide such Acked-by
tag according to kernel review rules, because I am completely unfamiliar
with kernel DRM internals and cannot review kernel code at all. This
might make people expecting Weston to prove their uAPI disappointed,
since there are very few Weston reviewers available.

If you meant something else, please word it to that you actually meant.


Thanks,
pq

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped