linux-ext4 - Re: [EXT4 set 2][PATCH 2/5] cleanups: Add extent sanity checks

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]

Message-Id: <20070712091932.68733b2b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:19:32 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>, cmm@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 2][PATCH 2/5] cleanups: Add extent sanity checks

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:57:51 -0500 Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 12:38 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> +			if (ext4_ext_check_header(inode, ext_block_hdr(bh),
> > >> +							depth - i - 1)) {
> > >> +				err = -EIO;
> > >> +				break;
> > >> +			}
> > >> +			path[i+1].p_bh = bh;
> > > 
> > > Really that should have been "i + 1".  checkpatch misses this.  It seems to
> > > be missing more stuff that it used to lately.
> > 
> > This one is difficult.  The rules up to now have been consistent spacing
> > is required on both sides of mathematics operators.  I personally like
> > spaces always, but we do tend to use them without spaces too where the
> > binding is effectivly part of the value -- the classic case is something
> > like:
> > 
> > 	pfn << MAX_ORDER-1
> > 
> > In allowing that sort of thing, we implictly allow the one you note
> > above.  We have tried to be overly annoying on these things, and so the
> > check is consistancy, spaces both or neither.  We could be stricter.
> 
> I personally think stricter is better.  An occasionally false-positive
> isn't going to hurt anyone.  (Well, maybe the checkpatch.pl maintainers
> will get nagged.)  It at least will cause the developer to look at the
> line of code in question and make a conscious decision to leave it as it
> is.  I'm assuming that upstream maintainers use checkpatch.pl with some
> constraint, and don't throw every patch that produces a warning back at
> the submitter.
> 

I'm in two minds.  Missing-the-spaces is pretty damn common and is sometimes
a reasonable way of saving quite a lot of horizontal space.  I spose we could
take it out again if it's causing problems.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html