Messages in this thread | | | From | alexander.levin@verizon ... | Subject | Re: [RFC 0/3] ABI spec - verification | Date | Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:36:56 +0000 |
| |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 03:25:05PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:37 PM, <alexander.levin@verizon.com> wrote: > > As discussed at plumbers, having a standard spec for the kernel's ABI has > > quite a few uses and enough people wanted it to get the ball rolling. > > > > We agreed that it's desirable to have something that can be used from code > > rather than just a spec on paper both for validation and allowing other users > > (like fuzzers, userspace libraries, and various userspace tools) to build > > on that. > > > > What we ended up deciding on at plumbers is: > > > > - I'll do a few kernel bits do demonstrate how we can validate the spec from > > the kernel. > > - Dmitry Vyukov will provide a way to translate syzkaller's syscall > > documentation into something that can be easily used in the kernel and > > userspace. > > - Various projects will attempt to integrate it to make sure that the > > framework works for them. > > > > Once those bits are done we can focus on getting the spec right, and we'll > > have a good way to validate our work both in userspace and in the kernel. > > > > This patchset is a basic draft of said kernel bits. I mostly want to make > > sure that Dmitry and myself are on the same page as to how integration will > > look like, but also to open it to criticism and suggestions (bikeshedding). > > > Looks like a good starting point! > > Do you have a git repo with this somewhere? I have problems applying > the patches, seems that my gmail messed them with some weird escaping.
I've pushed it to https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/sashal/linux.git/log/?h=abi_spec , will try to keep it updated.
> Is the intention that these descriptions are written by hand, or > generated from some DSL? > I benefited from easier to write descriptions, also I changed several > times what code generator generates without changing descriptions. > However, an additional level of indirection in the form of code > generator introduces own pain to maintain. So I am not too strong > here.
I would really to have the descriptions written in just *one* place, either by hand the way I did in that example, or in DSL. I understand your point about another level of indirection, but I'm afraid that if we don't force a monolithic spec we'll end up with way more than 2 different descriptions to maintain.
--
Thanks, Sasha
| |