spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Masahiro Yamada]

Hi.

scripts/spdxcheck.py warns the following two files.

$ ./scripts/spdxcheck.py
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_if.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_regs.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR


I do not understand what is wrong with them.

I think "A OR B OR C" is sane.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> scripts/spdxcheck.py warns the following two files.
> 
> $ ./scripts/spdxcheck.py
> drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_if.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
> drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_regs.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
> 
> I do not understand what is wrong with them.
> 
> I think "A OR B OR C" is sane.

Yes it is, but obviously we did not expect files with 3 possible
alternative licenses.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 23:11 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > scripts/spdxcheck.py warns the following two files.
> > 
> > $ ./scripts/spdxcheck.py
> > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_if.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
> > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_regs.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
> > 
> > I do not understand what is wrong with them.
> > 
> > I think "A OR B OR C" is sane.
> 
> Yes it is, but obviously we did not expect files with 3 possible
> alternative licenses.

Perhaps just this, but the generic logic
obviously isn't complete.
---
 scripts/spdxcheck.py | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/scripts/spdxcheck.py b/scripts/spdxcheck.py
index 6374e0..00be34 100755
--- a/scripts/spdxcheck.py
+++ b/scripts/spdxcheck.py
@@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ class id_parser(object):
                 | ID WITH EXC
                 | expr AND expr
                 | expr OR expr
+                | expr OR expr OR expr
                 | LPAR expr RPAR'''
         pass
 

RE: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Zavras, Alexios]

This is not correct.
Since the grammar includes the production "expr: expr OR expr",
there is absolutely no need to add a rule with more than two operands --
it will be handled recursively.

-- zvr

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org <linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Joe Perches
Sent: Monday, 4 November, 2019 23:24
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>; Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 23:11 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > scripts/spdxcheck.py warns the following two files.
> > 
> > $ ./scripts/spdxcheck.py
> > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_if.h: 1:52 Syntax error: 
> > OR
> > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_regs.h: 1:52 Syntax error: 
> > OR
> > 
> > I do not understand what is wrong with them.
> > 
> > I think "A OR B OR C" is sane.
> 
> Yes it is, but obviously we did not expect files with 3 possible 
> alternative licenses.

Perhaps just this, but the generic logic obviously isn't complete.
---
 scripts/spdxcheck.py | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/scripts/spdxcheck.py b/scripts/spdxcheck.py index 6374e0..00be34 100755
--- a/scripts/spdxcheck.py
+++ b/scripts/spdxcheck.py
@@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ class id_parser(object):
                 | ID WITH EXC
                 | expr AND expr
                 | expr OR expr
+                | expr OR expr OR expr
                 | LPAR expr RPAR'''
         pass
 


Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 10:11 +0000, Zavras, Alexios wrote:
> This is not correct.
> Since the grammar includes the production "expr: expr OR expr",
> there is absolutely no need to add a rule with more than two operands --
> it will be handled recursively.

You sure about the recursion?

It does work and spdxcheck no longer emits a message for
these two files.

> -- zvr
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org <linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Joe Perches
> Sent: Monday, 4 November, 2019 23:24
> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>; Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?
> 
> On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 23:11 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > scripts/spdxcheck.py warns the following two files.
> > > 
> > > $ ./scripts/spdxcheck.py
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_if.h: 1:52 Syntax error: 
> > > OR
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_regs.h: 1:52 Syntax error: 
> > > OR
> > > 
> > > I do not understand what is wrong with them.
> > > 
> > > I think "A OR B OR C" is sane.
> > 
> > Yes it is, but obviously we did not expect files with 3 possible 
> > alternative licenses.
> 
> Perhaps just this, but the generic logic obviously isn't complete.
> ---
>  scripts/spdxcheck.py | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/spdxcheck.py b/scripts/spdxcheck.py index 6374e0..00be34 100755
> --- a/scripts/spdxcheck.py
> +++ b/scripts/spdxcheck.py
> @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ class id_parser(object):
>                  | ID WITH EXC
>                  | expr AND expr
>                  | expr OR expr
> +                | expr OR expr OR expr
>                  | LPAR expr RPAR'''
>          pass
>  
> 
> 
> Intel Deutschland GmbH
> Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
> Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
> Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw
> Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
> Registered Office: Munich
> Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
> 

RE: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Zavras, Alexios]

Sorry for the delay in replying.
I've never used PLY before, but I do know lex and yacc, so I'm confident that an expression with two (or more) "OR" terms will be handled recursively.

The problem with spdxcheck.py is, I think, that it specifies "nonassoc" in the precedence variable, which effectively means that constructs like "a OR b OR c" are not allowed and need to be "(a OR b) OR c". I expect simply deleting this string would make everything pass.

The following standalone test code shows that there is no need for any additional rule in the grammar (the first tests succeed, the last two fail with lexical and parsing errors, respectively):

#!/usr/bin/env python3

import ply.lex as lex
import ply.yacc as yacc

tokens = ( 'ID', 'OR', 'AND', 'LPAR', 'RPAR',)

t_ID = r'[a-z]+'
t_OR = 'OR'
t_AND = 'AND'
t_LPAR  = r'\('
t_RPAR  = r'\)'
t_ignore  = ' \t\n'

def p_expr(p):
    '''expr : ID
        | expr AND expr
        | expr OR expr
        | LPAR expr RPAR'''

def t_error(t):
    print("Illegal character '%s'" % t.value[0])
    t.lexer.skip(1)

def p_error(p):
    print("Syntax error in input!", p)


lexer = lex.lex()
parser = yacc.yacc()

tests = ( 'a', 'a OR b', 'a AND b', 'a OR b OR c', 'a OR b AND c OR d',
        'a AND @', 'a OR OR b')
for s in tests:
    print(s)
    parser.parse(s)

#EOF----------------------------------------------------------------

-- zvr

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November, 2019 16:11
To: Zavras, Alexios <alexios.zavras@intel.com>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Subject: Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 10:11 +0000, Zavras, Alexios wrote:
> This is not correct.
> Since the grammar includes the production "expr: expr OR expr", there 
> is absolutely no need to add a rule with more than two operands -- it 
> will be handled recursively.

You sure about the recursion?

It does work and spdxcheck no longer emits a message for these two files.

> -- zvr
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org 
> <linux-spdx-owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Joe Perches
> Sent: Monday, 4 November, 2019 23:24
> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>; Masahiro Yamada 
> <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; 
> linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org; Linux Kernel Mailing List 
> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?
> 
> On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 23:11 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > scripts/spdxcheck.py warns the following two files.
> > > 
> > > $ ./scripts/spdxcheck.py
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_if.h: 1:52 Syntax error: 
> > > OR
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_regs.h: 1:52 Syntax error: 
> > > OR
> > > 
> > > I do not understand what is wrong with them.
> > > 
> > > I think "A OR B OR C" is sane.
> > 
> > Yes it is, but obviously we did not expect files with 3 possible 
> > alternative licenses.
> 
> Perhaps just this, but the generic logic obviously isn't complete.
> ---
>  scripts/spdxcheck.py | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/spdxcheck.py b/scripts/spdxcheck.py index 
> 6374e0..00be34 100755
> --- a/scripts/spdxcheck.py
> +++ b/scripts/spdxcheck.py
> @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ class id_parser(object):
>                  | ID WITH EXC
>                  | expr AND expr
>                  | expr OR expr
> +                | expr OR expr OR expr
>                  | LPAR expr RPAR'''
>          pass
>  
> 
> 
> Intel Deutschland GmbH
> Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
> Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
> Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw Chairperson of 
> the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office: Munich Commercial 
> Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
> 

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 02:24:23PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 23:11 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > scripts/spdxcheck.py warns the following two files.
> > > 
> > > $ ./scripts/spdxcheck.py
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_if.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_regs.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
> > > 
> > > I do not understand what is wrong with them.
> > > 
> > > I think "A OR B OR C" is sane.
> > 
> > Yes it is, but obviously we did not expect files with 3 possible
> > alternative licenses.
> 
> Perhaps just this, but the generic logic
> obviously isn't complete.

Can we please print a warning in that case even if we end up parsing
it correct?  tripple licensing always has a bit of a bad smell.

Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 11:11:53PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > scripts/spdxcheck.py warns the following two files.
> > 
> > $ ./scripts/spdxcheck.py
> > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_if.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
> > drivers/net/ethernet/pensando/ionic/ionic_regs.h: 1:52 Syntax error: OR
> > 
> > I do not understand what is wrong with them.
> > 
> > I think "A OR B OR C" is sane.
> 
> Yes it is, but obviously we did not expect files with 3 possible
> alternative licenses.

And I'm kinda happy about this warning because people are overdoing it.
There is no point for the Linux-OpenIB license in this case, as it
is just a BSD license with copy and paste errors.  I think the right
fix is to ask the authors to just drop it.

Re: spdxcheck.py complains about the second OR?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:39:39AM -0600, Kate Stewart wrote:
> Unfortunately those copy and paste errors introduced new legal terms which
> made it,  its own license.

FYI, I meant there is no reason for this brand new driver to tripple license
2 files under BSD2 clause and OpenIB.  (Or using the OpenIB license for
anything new for that matter).