linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/scsi/arm/acornscsi.c: rename CONFIG_ACORNSCSI

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: <CAD3Xx4LbR3tAo4V0-Ln6cR=h2dHvfycVdgdy1VEdO+4bo4UJ1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:57:45 +0200
From:	Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	JBottomley@...n.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/scsi/arm/acornscsi.c: rename CONFIG_ACORNSCSI_CONSTANTS

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
> Hi Valentin,
>
> On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 21:26 +0200, Valentin Rothberg wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
>> > Will the Erlangen bot still spot ACORNSCSI_CONSTANTS as a potential
>> > issue?
>>
>> No, undertaker-checkpatch won't complain about this.  There are
>> thousands of such cases (i.e., without CONFIG_ prefix) around in the
>> code (mostly #ifdef DEBUG).  But most of them are intentionally dead
>> or related to debugging, so they are ignored to avoid having false
>> positives.
>
> Well, in a few years time, once undertaker-checkpatch has stomped out
> most of the faux Kconfig preprocessor checks, that might be an area to
> cover too. Or is that issue, ie pointless preprocessor checks, harder
> than one might naively think?

To give a number from Linus' tree today: 4706 of such unprefixed dead
and undead #ifdefs and 940 'real' ones.  Most of them are intentional
-- this doesn't mean that it's not a problem.  Personally, I don't
like to have code around that cannot at least be easily test compiled;
 we manually need to (un)define the identifiers.

I like your proposal.  For symbolic issues, we could even put that
directly in checkkconfigsymbols.py, so a big part of the problem could
be solved directly with Kernel tools.  But I really hope that it won't
take a few years until we get there : )

 Valentin

> Thanks,
>
>
> Paul Bolle
>
--
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/