linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] checkpatch: add Kconfig 'default n' test

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:	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 20:10:47 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srv_heupstream@...iatek.com,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] checkpatch: add Kconfig 'default n' test

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:43:15AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-06-04 at 13:10 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> > If a Kconfig config option doesn't specify 'default', the default
> > will be n. Adding 'default n' is unnecessary.
> > Add a test to warn about this.
> 
> Is it obvious that a Kconfig has "default n" ?
> This seems to work, but is this useful?

> > +		if ($realfile =~ /Kconfig/ &&
> > +		    $line =~ /^\+\s*default\s*n\s*(#.*|$)/i) {

I wonder particually when the submitter has supplied a comment, presumably
to tell us why it defaults to 'n'.  I feel more accepting of rejecting
uncommented ones than those with.

> > +			WARN("CONFIG_DEFAULT_N",
> > +			     "Use of default n is unnecessary, default is n when omitted.\n" . $herecurr);
> > +		}
> > +
> >  		if (($realfile =~ /Makefile.*/ || $realfile =~ /Kbuild.*/) &&
> >  		    ($line =~ /\+(EXTRA_[A-Z]+FLAGS).*/)) {
> >  			my $flag = $1;

-apw