Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1442882 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-07-13 23:50 +0200

#1442882 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues

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 ?

*Poke*

  Luis

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web