linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/ci: validate drm/msm XML register files against schema

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: <e082de17-f4f7-1923-cfe0-10916c2e3caa@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 17:07:45 -0700
From: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
CC: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        Marijn
 Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard
	<mripard@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/ci: validate drm/msm XML register files
 against schema



On 5/3/2024 5:02 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2024 at 01:38, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/3/2024 1:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 22:42, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/3/2024 11:15 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> In order to validate drm/msm register definition files against schema,
>>>>> reuse the nodebugfs build step. The validation entry is guarded by
>>>>> the EXPERT Kconfig option and we don't want to enable that option for
>>>>> all the builds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh  | 3 +++
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml | 1 +
>>>>>     2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh
>>>>> index 106f2d40d222..28a495c0c39c 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.sh
>>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ rm -rf .git/rebase-apply
>>>>>     apt-get update
>>>>>     apt-get install -y libssl-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> +# for msm header validation
>>>>> +apt-get install -y python3-lxml
>>>>> +
>>>>>     if [[ "$KERNEL_ARCH" = "arm64" ]]; then
>>>>>         GCC_ARCH="aarch64-linux-gnu"
>>>>>         DEBIAN_ARCH="arm64"
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml
>>>>> index 17ab38304885..9c198239033d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/build.yml
>>>>> @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ build-nodebugfs:arm64:
>>>>>       extends: .build:arm64
>>>>>       variables:
>>>>>         DISABLE_KCONFIGS: "DEBUG_FS"
>>>>> +    ENABLE_KCONFIGS: "EXPERT DRM_MSM_VALIDATE_XML"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wouldnt this end up enabling DRM_MSM_VALIDATE_XML for any arm64 device.
>>>>
>>>> Cant we make this build rule msm specific?
>>>
>>> No need to. We just need to validate the files at least once during
>>> the whole pipeline build.
>>>
>>
>> ah okay, today the arm64 config anyway sets all arm64 vendor drm configs
>> to y.
>>
>> A couple of more questions:
>>
>> 1) Why is this enabled only for no-debugfs option?
>> 2) Will there be any concerns from other vendors to enable CONFIG_EXPERT
>> in their CI runs as the arm64 config is shared across all arm64 vendors.
> 
> I don't get the second question. This option is only enabled for
> no-debugfs, which isn't used for execution.
> 

Ah I see, makes sense.

> I didn't want to add an extra build stage, just for the sake of
> validating regs against the schema, nor did I want EXPERT to find its
> way into the actual running kernels.
> 

This answered my second question actually. That basically I didnt also 
want EXPERT to find its way into actual running kernels.

Hence, I am fine with this change now

Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>

But, I will wait to hear from helen, vignesh about what they think of this.