linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

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: <1454497774.7291.73.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Feb 2016 03:09:34 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Cc:	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h
 GUID additions

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 11:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > From: Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
> > 
> > This reformats the GUID definitions in include/linux/efi.h so that if
> > you add another one with the same style, checkpatch won't complain about
> > it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/efi.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h
> > index 09f1559e7525..f468f7c53236 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > @@ -535,67 +535,88 @@ void efi_native_runtime_setup(void);
> >   *  EFI Configuration Table and GUID definitions
> >   */
> >  #define NULL_GUID \
> > -    EFI_GUID(  0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 )
> > +	EFI_GUID(0x00000000, 0x0000, 0x0000, \
> > +		 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00)
> >  
> >  #define MPS_TABLE_GUID    \
> > -    EFI_GUID(  0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, 0x9a, 0x16, 0x0, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d )
> > +	EFI_GUID(0xeb9d2d2f, 0x2d88, 0x11d3, \
> > +		 0x9a, 0x16, 0x00, 0x90, 0x27, 0x3f, 0xc1, 0x4d)
> 
> So I really think this is a step backwards.

Some people take checkpatch messages altogether too seriously.

from: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/568
----------------------------------
The other thing that might help is for people to take
the warnings the script produces less seriously.

Maybe convert:

ERROR -> defect
WARNING -> unstylish
CHECK -> nitpick

or some such
----------------------------------
> Checkpatch should be fixed/enhanced to allow targeted exemption. Something like:
> 
> 
> 	#define CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
> 	...
> 	#undef CHECKPATCH_IGNORE
> 
> ... which checkpatch would parse and interpret accordingly.

A similar proposal: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/30/175

checkpatch works on patches.
If the #define isn't in the patch scope the script won't know.

Perhaps it's simpler to add some facility to allow lines
with known keywords to exceed $max_line_length similar
to the format strings of logging functions.