linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: remove unneeded or ("|")

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]

Date:	Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:54:59 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: remove unneeded or ("|")

Am 12.03.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Andy Whitcroft:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 07:13:35AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 15:07 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> while porting commit 89a883530fe7 ("checkpatch: ## is not a valid
>>> modifier") to QEMU, Peter Maydell noticed that the | at the end of
>>> the list is not necessary.
>>>
>>> Lets get rid of it in kernel checkpatch.pl
>>
>> Andy?  Was that meant to allow nothing?
>>
>>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> []
>>> @@ -1550,7 +1550,7 @@ sub possible {
>>>  			asm|__asm__|
>>>  			do|
>>>  			\#|
>>> -			\#\#|
>>> +			\#\#
>>>  		)(?:\s|$)|
>>>  		^(?:typedef|struct|enum)\b
>>>  	    )}x;
> 
> Blimey you tax my memory indeed.
> 
> The two places it is used we are saying that the strings which match are
> not modifiers.  So it seems sane that we would want to reject the empty
> string in that case.  That said, it does not appear any of the callers
> would call with a blank string.  I would suggest we had it like that as
> a safety feature, _though_ if we had I would have expected it to have a
> nice shiney comment to say just how smart we being using that trailing
> or and so likely as not is is unintentional.
> 
> tl;dr I think it is safe to elide it with the current callers, it being
> there seems safe, but if it stays damn it should have a comment to say
> its a safety net and not just hide out.
> 
> -apw
> 

So how to proceed?
Take my patch, drop my patch or rework my patch?


--
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/