linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: bootconfig: Add EBNF syntax file

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: <20200228121535.0c0e0e67fb11f1e07ea18e4c@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:15:35 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: bootconfig: Add EBNF syntax file

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:53:03 +0100
Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:

> Thanks for such a contribution.
> 
> 
> > Add an extended Backus–Naur form (EBNF) syntax file for
> 
> Can it matter to mention the specific file format specification version
> which should be applied finally?
> 
> Would you like to refer to any standard variant?

I choose ISO/IEC 14977 : 1996(E), but it seems no good.

Don’t Use ISO/IEC 14977 Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF)
https://dwheeler.com/essays/dont-use-iso-14977-ebnf.html

I agree with this article. the ISO 14977 is halfway...
Not easy for human, but not good for machine too.
(at least it should support #xN as same as W3C BNF.

I'll drop it until rewriten by other standerd.

> > bootconfig so that user can logically understand how they
> 
> Wording alternative “… that users can …”?
> 
> 
> > can write correct boot configuration file.
> 
> Related development tools provide some benefits then, don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> …
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.ebnf
> …
> > +digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" | "8" | "9" ;
> 
> Can the specification of such alternatives (or value ranges) become
> more compact (depending on a selected standard)?

W3C EBNF support it, ISO14977 doesn't.

> …
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bootconfig.rst
> …
> > +Here is the boot configuration file syntax written in EBNF.
> 
> I suggest to replace the abbreviation “EBNF” by the term “extended Backus–Naur form”
> in such a sentence.

I think EBNF is enough.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>