linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Make the memory barrier test noisier

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: <20130927142605.GC15690@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:26:05 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Make the memory barrier test noisier

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 07:14:17AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra prefers that comments be required near uses
> of memory barriers.
> 
> Change the message level for memory barrier uses from a
> --strict test only to a normal WARN so it's always emitted.
> 
> This might produce false positives around insertions of
> memory barriers when a comment is outside the patch context
> block.

One would argue that in that case they're too far away in any case :-)

> And checkpatch is still stupid, it only looks for existence
> of any comment, not at the comment content.

Could we try and alleviate this by giving a slightly more verbose
warning?

Maybe something like:

 memory barrier without comment; please refer to the pairing barrier and
 describe the ordering requirements.

> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
--
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/