linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RESEND] checkpatch: Add warning for p0-patches

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: <9ea470500811120623q4334f840t4540649edba935@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:23:35 +0100
From:	"Borislav Petkov" <petkovbb@...glemail.com>
To:	"Andy Whitcroft" <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc:	"Wolfram Sang" <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] checkpatch: Add warning for p0-patches

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 04:36:10PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Some people work internally with -p0-patches which has the danger that
>> one forgets to convert them to -p1 before mainlining. Bitten myself and
>> seen p0-patches in mailing lists occasionally, this patch adds a warning
>> to checkpatch.pl in case a patch is -p0. If you really want, you can
>> fool this check to generate false positives, this is why it just spits a
>> warning. Making the check 100% proof is trickier than it looks, so let's
>> start with a version which catches the cases of real use.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
>> ---
>>  scripts/checkpatch.pl |    8 +++++++-
>>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> index f88bb3e..dae5854 100755
>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> @@ -1051,6 +1051,7 @@ sub process {
>>       my $in_comment = 0;
>>       my $comment_edge = 0;
>>       my $first_line = 0;
>> +     my $p1_prefix = '';
>>
>>       my $prev_values = 'E';
>>
>> @@ -1196,7 +1197,12 @@ sub process {
>>               # extract the filename as it passes
>>               if ($line=~/^\+\+\+\s+(\S+)/) {
>>                       $realfile = $1;
>> -                     $realfile =~ s@^[^/]*/@@;
>> +                     $realfile =~ s@^([^/]*)/@@;
>> +
>> +                     $p1_prefix = $1;
>> +                     if ($tree && -e "$root/$p1_prefix") {
>> +                             WARN("Patch prefix '$p1_prefix' exists. Is it maybe a p0-patch?\n");
>> +                     }
>>
>>                       if ($realfile =~ m@...clude/asm/@) {
>>                               ERROR("do not modify files in include/asm, change architecture specific files in include/asm-<architecture>\n" . "$here$rawline\n");
>
> Looks reasonable.  Committed this with a few mods to my tree.  Will be
> in the next batch of updates.

Hi,

I had sent you a very similar patch (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/17/19) and
and you turned it down then since it would trigger when the patch creates new
files. Well, this one suffers from the exact opposite problem - it won't trigger
even if it is a -p0 patch on new files, AFAICT.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris
--
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/