linux-kernel - Re: bug in checkpatch (on pointers to typedefs?)

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: <47B07EA0.7010708@panasas.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:58:08 +0200
From:	Benny Halevy <bhalevy@...asas.com>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
CC:	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bug in checkpatch (on pointers to typedefs?)

On Feb. 11, 2008, 18:40 +0200, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 06:05:48PM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
>> I saw this too with checkpatch.pl version 0.12
>> It seems like checkpatch.pl knows only about types derived
>> from @typeList by build_types.
>>
>> Example below...
>>
>> Benny
>>
>> $ cat <<EOF | scripts/checkpatch.pl -
>> Signed-off-by: john@...th.net
>> ---
>> diff a/f.c b/f.c
>> --- a/f.c
>> +++ b/f.c
>> @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@
>> +foo(int a, my_uint32 *);
>> +bar(int a, my_uint32_t *);
> 
> But that isn't actually syntactically correct code is it?  You have types
> as parameters like a function declaration, but no return type.  So there
> is no hint to checkpatch that this is a function declaration and therefore
> the parameters are not expected to be types, nor are they checked as such.
> 
> The following diff is clean on the latest version of checkpatch:
> 
> Signed-off-by: john@...th.net
> ---
> diff a/f.c b/f.c
> --- a/f.c
> +++ b/f.c
> @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@
> +void foo(int a, my_uint32 *);
> +int bar(int a, my_uint32_t *);
> EOF

OK, but the return type doesn't have to be in the patched line, it could be in
a synchronization line or even missing if the function has a long multi-line argument
list.

> 
> Could you try out the version of checkpatch at the URL below on the real
> patch you are using to test, and let me know if it works.  There are
> a number of improvements to type tracking in the face of ifdef's and
> the like.  If it doesn't could I have the hunk which fails:
> 
>   http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/apw/checkpatch/checkpatch.pl-next

Your modified patch passes with version 0.12 as well as checkpatch.pl-next

However, the following patch that has the return type in the synchronization lines
still produces the same error:

$ ./checkpatch.pl-next -
Signed-off-by: john@...th.net
---
diff a/f.c b/f.c
--- a/f.c
+++ b/f.c
@@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
 int
+foo(int a, my_uint32 *);
 int
+bar(int a, my_uint32_t *);
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxB)
#8: FILE: f.c:2:
+foo(int a, my_uint32 *);
                      ^

total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 4 lines checked

> 
> -apw
> --
> 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/

--
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/