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: <1472499252.3425.93.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:34:12 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        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 22:17 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:10:20PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:06:18PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > I would like a couple changes which you know already:
> > > 
> > > 1) Get rid of PREFER_ETHER_ADDR_COPY and similar because the people who
> > > send checkpatch.pl fixes aren't qualified to say when it's legal or not
> > > so they sometimes introduce bugs.
> > I do think we should have *something* that catches such things.
> > Perhaps not checkpatch.pl, though.  Perhaps a compiler plugin that
> > generates additional warnings, and can perhaps use more global
> > information to determine legality?
> Perhaps.  But that shouldn't delay us from deleting this code which just
> encourages newbies to introduce bugs.

You could send a patch.

I still kinda like the --force option

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5814071/