linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ?

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: <1472474879.3425.30.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 05:47:59 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        "Levin, Alexander" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ?

On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 11:01 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: 

> I don't find checkpatch.pl overly useful for my own patches and rarely
> run it.

I mostly run checkpatch to test new checkpatch rules.

I generally don't run it on my own patches, mostly out
of possibly misplaced confidence in my own adherence to
the nominal kernel style.  It sometimes leads to mild
regret over things like whitespace defects.

I get over it quickly.

But I also think checkpatch's overall false positive
reporting rate is relatively low.  Most all of what
it does to report possible defects is nominally correct.

If anyone has examples of bad reporting by checkpatch,
please send it.