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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1451606 > 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> - 2016-07-28 02:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-08-03 17:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-08-03 17:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-08-03 19:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-08-03 21:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2016-08-03 21:50 +0200

#1451606 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 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*

*Re-poke*

  Luis

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1455845

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:41:48AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > 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*
> 
> *Re-poke*

Re-re-poke.

The scripts/coccicheck changes are now merged on Linus' tree, so these patches
have no other pending changes upstream.

Who's tree can this go through or is this too late now?
Andrew can these go through your tree?

  Luis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1455864

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:41:48AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > 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*
> > 
> > *Re-poke*
> 
> Re-re-poke.
> 
> The scripts/coccicheck changes are now merged on Linus' tree, so these patches
> have no other pending changes upstream.
> 
> Who's tree can this go through or is this too late now?

It's way too late for 4.8-rc1, it will have to go into a maintainer tree
after 4.8-rc1 is out.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1455903

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:04:39PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:41:48AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > 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*
> > > 
> > > *Re-poke*
> > 
> > Re-re-poke.
> > 
> > The scripts/coccicheck changes are now merged on Linus' tree, so these patches
> > have no other pending changes upstream.
> > 
> > Who's tree can this go through or is this too late now?
> 
> It's way too late for 4.8-rc1, it will have to go into a maintainer tree
> after 4.8-rc1 is out.

OK thanks, what maintainer tree should this go through ? firmware_class changes
seem to sporadically go through different maintainers, and often some changes
go in without much review. Not sure if this is helping.

For instance Stephen Boyd's commit a098ecd2fa7db8fa4f ("firmware: support
loading into a pre-allocated buffer") when in through Andrew and I saw no
formal ACK from the maintainer. Meanwhile this series lingered just as long,
had IMHO less controversial changes, but went no where. I am adding myself to
the list of maintainers for firmware_class in this series to help with this as
I've already been helping with review and I'd like to help with maintenance but
its not clear if the current tree setup helps. I don't think setting up a tree
just for firmware_class makes sense.. but not sure what to do about the tree
situation.  Would setting on going through you through a driver-core branch be
best?  How can we make things better ? Your advice is appreciated.

  Luis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1455997

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:06:07PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:04:39PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:41:48AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > 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*
> > > > 
> > > > *Re-poke*
> > > 
> > > Re-re-poke.
> > > 
> > > The scripts/coccicheck changes are now merged on Linus' tree, so these patches
> > > have no other pending changes upstream.
> > > 
> > > Who's tree can this go through or is this too late now?
> > 
> > It's way too late for 4.8-rc1, it will have to go into a maintainer tree
> > after 4.8-rc1 is out.
> 
> OK thanks, what maintainer tree should this go through ? firmware_class changes
> seem to sporadically go through different maintainers, and often some changes
> go in without much review. Not sure if this is helping.

I usually take them, after they are acked by the firmware maintainer.  I
haven't looked to see if this series is, if it is, I can easily take
them.

But again, I can't do anything until after 4.8-rc1 is out, and then I
get to start working through my huge backlog due to a vacation and
conference travel I did last month.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1455999

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:32:41PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:06:07PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:04:39PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:50:14PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 02:41:48AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > > 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*
> > > > > 
> > > > > *Re-poke*
> > > > 
> > > > Re-re-poke.
> > > > 
> > > > The scripts/coccicheck changes are now merged on Linus' tree, so these patches
> > > > have no other pending changes upstream.
> > > > 
> > > > Who's tree can this go through or is this too late now?
> > > 
> > > It's way too late for 4.8-rc1, it will have to go into a maintainer tree
> > > after 4.8-rc1 is out.
> > 
> > OK thanks, what maintainer tree should this go through ? firmware_class changes
> > seem to sporadically go through different maintainers, and often some changes
> > go in without much review. Not sure if this is helping.
> 
> I usually take them, after they are acked by the firmware maintainer.  I
> haven't looked to see if this series is, if it is, I can easily take
> them.

That's the thing Ming is busy it seems so this series nor the changes that
actually went through Andrew were ACKed (and I actually NACK'd the changes that
eventually did go through Andrew after I saw them appear on linux-next), so I'm
adding myself to the MAINTAINERS list to help with this.

> But again, I can't do anything until after 4.8-rc1 is out, and then I
> get to start working through my huge backlog due to a vacation and
> conference travel I did last month.

Understood. Will post once 4.8-rc1 is out.

  Luis

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web