linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] gpio: cdev: add uAPI v2

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:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 17:54:33 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] gpio: cdev: add uAPI v2

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:24 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/4/20 7:02 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:52 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 04:37:50PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:02:04AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:21 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>> To me it looks good, just a couple nits here and there and some questions.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it's worth deciding whether we want to keep the selftests in
> >>>> tools/testing/selftests/gpio/ and then maybe consider porting
> >>>> gpio-mockup-chardev.c to V2 or simply outsource it entirely to
> >>>> libgpiod.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ooops - I wasn't even aware they existed - though it had crossed my mind
> >>> that the kernel should have some selftests somewhere - I use the libgpiod
> >>> tests, from my libgpiod port, and my own Go based test suite for my testing,
> >>> as well as some smoke tests with the tools/gpio.
> >>>
> >>> The libgpiod tests only cover v1 equivalent functionality, while my Go
> >>> tests cover the complete uAPI, and both v1 and v2.
> >>>
> >>> It would be good for the kernel to at least have some smoke tests to
> >>> confirm basic functionality, even thorough testing is left to a
> >>> userspace library.  So the existing tests should be ported to v2, though
> >>> should also retain the v1 tests if v1 is still compiled in.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I've got a v7 ready to submit that includes a couple of patches for the
> >> gpio-mockup selftests (their primary purpose appears to be testing the
> >> mockup module, rather than the GPIO ABI), but I now notice that the
> >> selftests/gpio section of the tree has a different maintainer:
> >>
> >> scripts/get_maintainer.pl 0021-selftests-gpio-port-to-GPIO-uAPI-v2.patch
> >> Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@...il.com> (maintainer:GPIO MOCKUP DRIVER)
> >> Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org> (maintainer:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK)
> >> linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org (open list:GPIO MOCKUP DRIVER)
> >> linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org (open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK)
> >> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
> >
> > Bamvor, Shuah: do you still have interest in maintaining these, or can
> > we update MAINTAINERS?
> >
>
> I maintain kselftests and gpio selftest falls under that. Please send
> selftest patches to me so I can review them.
>
> As for the gpio mock driver and test itself, you will have to wait for
> Bamvor to respond.
>

Hi Shuah,

I've been de facto maintaining gpio-mockup for a couple years now.
Bamvor has been quite inactive as far as gpio testing goes. I think
it's fine if you ack the selftests changes.

In fact: I don't want selftests to block getting V2 uAPI upstream so
if that'll look like it's going to take more time then I'm for merging
V2 without any changes to selftests - in the end we have tests in
user-space already.

Bart

> >>
> >> The v7 patch up to that point restores the functions that the selftests
> >> are using so that they build and run again.
>
> This test has been problematic because of its dependency on tools/gpio.
>
> >> So I should hold off on the selftest patches and submit them separately
> >> after the GPIO changes are in?
> >>
>
> Please send me the selftest patches. Also see the comments in
> selftests/Makefile about excluding the gpio test from default run.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
>