linux-kernel - Re: latest checkpatch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:25:21 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: latest checkpatch

On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:13:52PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> latest checkpatch.pl works really well on sched.c.
> 
> there's only one problem left, this bogus false positive warning 
> reappeared:
> 
>   WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks
>   #5710: FILE: sched.c:5710:
>   +       if (parent->groups == parent->groups->next) {
>   +               pflags &= ~(SD_LOAD_BALANCE |
>   +                               SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE |
>   +                               SD_BALANCE_FORK |
>   +                               SD_BALANCE_EXEC |
>   +                               SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER |
>   +                               SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES);
>   +       }
> 
> (there's another place in sched.c that trips this up too.)

It actually never went away, some of the wronger reports went away such
as counting a commented statement as a single statement.  The check for
length didn't make the cut for 0.11, as I was still thinking about
whether we wanted a subjective check on statements over and above the
"real" check for lines.

> i think it has been pointed out numerous times that it is perfectly fine 
> to use curly braces for multi-line single-statement blocks. That 
> includes simple cases like this too:
> 
> 	if (x) {
> 		/* do y() */
> 		y();
> 	}

Yes and the comment in there actually counts as a statement for counting
statement purposes.  

The plan is to move to counting lines and only winge on exactly one
line.  I have half a mind to make a subjective check on statements and a
full check on lines.  But probabally it will just move to lines.

> it's perfectly legitimate, in fact more robust. So if checkpatch.pl 
> wants to make any noise about such constructs it should warn about the 
> _lack_ of curly braces in every multi-line condition block _except_ the 
> only safe single-line statement:
> 
> 	if (x)
> 		y();

Indeed.  We should probabally do more on the indentation checks in
general.  The current direct check for:

	if (foo);
		bar();

Could probabally be generalised to look for this kind of error:

	if (foo)
		bar();
		baz();
	one();

-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/