linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch potential false positive

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, 06 Nov 2017 07:29:18 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch potential false positive

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 08:33 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:19:14PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > Hi,

Hello.

> > When parsing drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c in Greg's
> > staging tree checkpatch emits
> > 
> > --------------
> > visorchipset.c
> > --------------
> > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const
> > #1050: FILE: visorchipset.c:1050:
> > +	char *envp[] = { env_cmd, env_id, env_state, env_bus, env_dev,
> > 
> > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const
> > #1140: FILE: visorchipset.c:1140:
> > +	char *envp[] = { env_selftest, NULL };
> > 
> > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 1694 lines checked
> > 
> > I may be wrong but I think the code in question is clean and
> > correct. Since checkpatch is saying this _might_ be better ... perhaps
> > checkpatch could emit CHECK instead of WARNING for this?

CHECKs aren't enabled by default except for a few
directories and this warning is much more commonly
correct than incorrect.

checkpatch will always have both false positives and
false negatives.  It's stupid, people generally aren't.

Just ignore checkpatch bleats that aren't appropriate.