linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

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: <1411499064.29268.6.camel@joe-AO725>
Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:04:24 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"sparse@...isli.org" <sparse@...isli.org>,
	"linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

On Tue, 2014-09-23 at 20:44 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:24:22PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> > Perhaps checkpatch would be a better gatekeeper for new code. OTOH,
> > some of those nested externs have already been eliminated, so at
> > least for now the warning is serving a purpose since it is scrubbing
> > existing code.
> 
> Yep, eliminating would be optimal. If it is in checkpatch, it is much
> easier to manage.

checkpatch is simply a regex tester, so it's only appropriate
if the false-positive false-negative rate is acceptable.

Coccinelle may be better at whatever test is being considered.


--
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/