Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:23:36 +0800 | From | Fengguang Wu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues |
| |
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 04:15:01AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 07:52:07AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >> Hi Luis, >> >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:56:44AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:54:16PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >>The firmware API has had some issues a while ago, some of this is >> >>not well documented, and its still hard to grasp. This documents >> >>some of these issues, adds SmPL grammar rules to enable us to hunt >> >>for issues, and annotations to help us with our effort to finally >> >>compartamentalize that pesky usermode helper. >> >> >> >>Previously this was just one patch, the grammar rule to help >> >>find request firmware API users on init or probe, this series >> >>extends that effort with usermode helper grammar rules, and some >> >>annotations and documentation on the firmware_class driver to >> >>avoid further issues. Documenting the usermode helper and making >> >>it clear why we cannot remove it is important for analysis for >> >>the next series which adds the new flexible sysdata firmware API. >> >> >> >>This series depends on the coccicheck series which enables >> >>annotations on coccinelle patches to require a specific >> >>version of coccinelle [0], as such coordination with Michal is >> >>in order. >> > >> >Michal is out until July 11, and upon further thought such coordination >> >is not need, the annotation is in place as comments and as such >> >merging this now won't have any negative effects other than the version >> >check. Also the patches in question for the coccicheck change are all >> >acked now and I expect them to be merged anyway. >> > >> >Which tree should firmware changes go through ? >> >> >>This series is also further extended next with the new sydata >> >>API, the full set of changes is available on my linux-next tree [1]. >> >> >> >>Perhaps now a good time to discuss -- if 0-day should enable the rule >> >>scripts/coccinelle/api/request_firmware-usermode.cocci to be called on >> >>every 0-day iteration, it runs rather fast and it should help police >> >>against avoiding futher explicit users of the usermode helper. >> > >> >And if we are going to merge this anyone oppose enabling hunting >> >for further explicit users of the usermode helper using grammar through >> >0-day ? >> >> When *.cocci scripts lands upstream they'll be auto picked up by the >> 0-day bot to guard new patches/commits. > >Great thanks! > >> Are there further steps 0-day should do for request_firmware-upstream.cocci? > >It just requires coccinelle >= 1.0.5.
That looks easy. When do you estimate the script will land upstream? So we can make sure upgrade coccinelle before that time.
Thanks, Fengguang
| |