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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190521082653.GJ21222@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 10:26:53 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, 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 Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:47:34AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> 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.

Hm right, that wording is putting a bit too high a bar. We want the
userspace view point here, not force userspace people to review kernel
code. I'll try to clarify this a bit better.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch