LinuxLists.cc - [PATCH v1] checkpatch: add missing bindings license check

2023-03-17 20:16:42

Subject: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: add missing bindings license check

All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
the whole DT bindings system.

The requirement is dual licensed and matching string:
'GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause'

The issue was found during patch review:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]>
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 78cc595b98ce..2d12d39992cb 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -3709,7 +3709,8 @@ sub process {
WARN("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG",
"'$spdx_license' is not supported in LICENSES/...\n" . $herecurr);
}
- if ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ &&
+ if (($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ ||
+ $realfile =~ m@^include/dt-bindings/@) &&
not $spdx_license =~ /GPL-2\.0.*BSD-2-Clause/) {
my $msg_level = \&WARN;
$msg_level = \&CHK if ($file);
--
2.36.0

2023-03-17 22:28:27

by Joe Perches

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: add missing bindings license check

On Fri, 2023-03-17 at 23:16 +0300, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
> together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
> the whole DT bindings system.
>
> The requirement is dual licensed and matching string:
> 'GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause'
>
> The issue was found during patch review:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]>
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> @@ -3709,7 +3709,8 @@ sub process {
> WARN("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG",
> "'$spdx_license' is not supported in LICENSES/...\n" . $herecurr);
> }
> - if ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ &&
> + if (($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ ||
> + $realfile =~ m@^include/dt-bindings/@) &&

I prefer aligning to open parens

> not $spdx_license =~ /GPL-2\.0.*BSD-2-Clause/) {

And if it's really a strict bit about the required license,
why not make it match exactly?

$spdx_license !~ /GPL-2\.0(?:-only|-or-later|\+)? OR BSD-2-Clause/) {

> my $msg_level = \&WARN;
> $msg_level = \&CHK if ($file);

$ git grep -oh 'SPDX-License.*$' -- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ include/dt-bindings/ | \
sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
1597 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
611 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
540 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
355 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
285 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
179 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
102 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
93 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */
56 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
47 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
36 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */
34 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
33 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
28 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
21 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
19 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ or MIT) */
17 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) */
12 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause)
11 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
9 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause */
8 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT */
8 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause */
7 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
7 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
7 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause) */
6 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0)
5 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR MIT */
5 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
5 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 or MIT) */
4 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)
3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause) */
3 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause */
3 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or BSD-3-Clause */
3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause) */
3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) */
3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause) */
2 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ or MIT)
2 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT */
2 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT)
2 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause */
2 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause)*/
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT) */
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later or MIT) */
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later or BSD-2-Clause */
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later)
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ or BSD-3-Clause */
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause) */
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or X11 */
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR MIT) */
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause */
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only)
1 SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause

2023-03-20 08:32:08

by Dmitry Rokosov

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] checkpatch: add missing bindings license check

Hello Joe,

Thank you for quick review. Please find my comments below.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 03:28:16PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-03-17 at 23:16 +0300, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> > All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
> > together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
> > the whole DT bindings system.
> >
> > The requirement is dual licensed and matching string:
> > 'GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause'
> >
> > The issue was found during patch review:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
> > @@ -3709,7 +3709,8 @@ sub process {
> > WARN("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG",
> > "'$spdx_license' is not supported in LICENSES/...\n" . $herecurr);
> > }
> > - if ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ &&
> > + if (($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ ||
> > + $realfile =~ m@^include/dt-bindings/@) &&
>
> I prefer aligning to open parens
>
> > not $spdx_license =~ /GPL-2\.0.*BSD-2-Clause/) {

Okay, no problem, will send new version today.
>
> And if it's really a strict bit about the required license,
> why not make it match exactly?
>
> $spdx_license !~ /GPL-2\.0(?:-only|-or-later|\+)? OR BSD-2-Clause/) {
>

I think, it's a good idea.

> > my $msg_level = \&WARN;
> > $msg_level = \&CHK if ($file);
>
> $ git grep -oh 'SPDX-License.*$' -- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ include/dt-bindings/ | \
> sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
> 1597 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 611 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 540 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> 355 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> 285 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> 179 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> 102 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> 93 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */
> 56 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
> 47 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
> 36 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */
> 34 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> 33 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
> 28 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> 21 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> 19 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ or MIT) */
> 17 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) */
> 12 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 11 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> 9 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause */
> 8 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT */
> 8 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause */
> 7 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
> 7 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 7 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause) */
> 6 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0)
> 5 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR MIT */
> 5 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
> 5 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 or MIT) */
> 4 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)
> 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause) */
> 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause */
> 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or BSD-3-Clause */
> 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause) */
> 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) */
> 3 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause) */
> 2 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ or MIT)
> 2 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT */
> 2 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT)
> 2 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause */
> 2 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-3-Clause)*/
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT) */
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later or MIT) */
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later or BSD-2-Clause */
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later)
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ or BSD-3-Clause */
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause) */
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or X11 */
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR MIT) */
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause */
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only)
> 1 SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
>

I've noticed it too, asked Krzysztof about this situation in the below
review:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

Krzysztof mentioned, that he checked the purpose to have different
license each time manually. But by default, it should be strict.

--
Thank you,
Dmitry