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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists