linux-kernel - Re: Are Section mismatches out of control?

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802012245250.18790@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 22:47:25 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: Are Section mismatches out of control?


On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
>> 
>> Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
>> detect and fix?
>> 
>> Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
>> compilation testing.
>
>[...]
>Unless they break the build, or if there currently are 0 and they make
>it non-zero, people seem not to care....sad.  Probably the same for
>sparse/checkpatch, "there's plenty already, I can't be bothered to look"

checkpatch does not parse C, it uses heuristical regexes.

That makes it very different from sparse or the section mismatch
finder which do not output false positives.
--
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/