linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:56:29 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code

On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 18:49 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> 
>    As I am going over Lustre to clean up the code style, I noticed this bunch below.
> 
>    Those all are function definitions, though I guess it might have been foiled by
>    return type on the previous line?
>    Now sure if anything could be done about this.
> 
>    Thanks.
> 
> ERROR: that open brace { should be on the previous line 
> #2098: FILE: drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c:1358:
> +cfs_ash_for_each_enter(struct cfs_hash *hs)
> +{

[etc...]

Yeah, that's a defect of some type.

I'm not sure if it's really possible to handle it well though.

Maybe there could be a test added for something like

"^[\+ ](?:$Declare\s*|DeclareMisordered\s*)?\$Ident\("

to find what looks like function declarations in the
first column to avoid some of these false positives.

Andy?