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

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ming.lei@canonical.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mmarek@suse.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, markivx@codeaurora.org,
	stephen.boyd@linaro.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	broonie@kernel.org, tiwai@suse.de, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
	chunkeey@googlemail.com, hauke@hauke-m.de,
	jwboyer@fedoraproject.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
	dwmw2@infradead.org, jslaby@suse.com,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, luto@amacapital.net,
	fengguang.wu@intel.com, rpurdie@rpsys.net,
	j.anaszewski@samsung.com, Abhay_Salunke@dell.com,
	Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr, Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr,
	nicolas.palix@imag.fr, teg@jklm.no, dhowells@redhat.com,
	martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com, nbd@nbd.name,
	mark.rutland@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com, dev@kresin.me,
	kvalo@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] firmware: add SmPL grammar to avoid issues
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 02:41:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160728004148.GU5537@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160713214752.GF6239@wotan.suse.de>

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