linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] checkpatch: fix false errors due to macro concatenation

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:	Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:46:12 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] checkpatch: fix false errors due to macro
 concatenation

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 07:14:47PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> The macro concatenation (##) sequence can cause false errors when checking
> macro's. Checkpatch doesn't currently know about the operator.
> 
> For example this line,
> 
> + 	entry = (struct ftrace_raw_##call *)raw_data;                   \
> 
> is correct but it produces the following error,
> 
> ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxB)
> +       entry = (struct ftrace_raw_##call *)raw_data;\
>                                           ^
> 
> The line above doesn't have any spacing problems, and if you remove the
> macro concatenation sequence checkpatch doesn't give any errors. This change
> resolves this by just always removing "##" in every line checked.

Ok, just removing these characters in the conversion changes the
relative length of the converted form and breaks position reporting for
other checks, for instance if I stupidly convert the ## to # so its
still invalid we then get this:

+	entry = (struct ftrace_raw_##call *)raw_data; \

It is probabally more correct to include this <ident> ## <ident> form in
the definition of an identifier.  I've respun this patch to do just that
and it looks like its working as we would hope.

I will get this tested properly and add it to my next batch.

Perhaps you could test the version at the url below and see if it works
better:

  http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-testing

NOTE: you want at least version 0.29-5-* which is in the process of
mirroring out.

-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/