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

Date:	Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:57:13 -0500
From:	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code


On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> [etc...]
> 
> Yeah, that's a defect of some type.

Also while I have your attention, here's another one:

struct cfs_percpt_lock *
cfs_percpt_lock_alloc(struct cfs_cpt_table *cptab)
{
        struct cfs_percpt_lock  *pcl;
        spinlock_t              *lock;
        int                     i;
…
        cfs_percpt_for_each(lock, i, pcl->pcl_locks)
                spin_lock_init(lock);

The declaration of the spinlock pointer produces:
CHECK: spinlock_t definition without comment

Should spinlock pointers really be included in the check, it's obvious that
they themselves are not really protecting anything, esp. considering it's a
local function variable here.