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: <1380292495.17366.106.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:34:55 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, 2013-09-27 at 16:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

That would make it seem as if all barriers are SMP no?

Maybe just refer to Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
and/or say something like "please document appropriately"


--
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/