linux-kernel - [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20161028124944.17930-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:49:44 +0100
From:   Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by under --strict

Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
(or with --review).

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index a8368d1c4348..9eaa5a4fbbc0 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev);
 my $quiet = 0;
 my $tree = 1;
 my $chk_signoff = 1;
+my $chk_review = 0;
 my $chk_patch = 1;
 my $tst_only;
 my $emacs = 0;
@@ -69,6 +70,7 @@ Options:
   -q, --quiet                quiet
   --no-tree                  run without a kernel tree
   --no-signoff               do not check for 'Signed-off-by' line
+  --review                   check for 'Reviewed-by' line
   --patch                    treat FILE as patchfile (default)
   --emacs                    emacs compile window format
   --terse                    one line per report
@@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ GetOptions(
 	'q|quiet+'	=> \$quiet,
 	'tree!'		=> \$tree,
 	'signoff!'	=> \$chk_signoff,
+	'review!'	=> \$chk_review,
 	'patch!'	=> \$chk_patch,
 	'emacs!'	=> \$emacs,
 	'terse!'	=> \$terse,
@@ -217,7 +220,7 @@ help(0) if ($help);
 
 list_types(0) if ($list_types);
 
-$fix = 1 if ($fix_inplace);
+$chk_review = 1 if ($check); # --strict implies checking for Reviewed-by
 $check_orig = $check;
 
 my $exit = 0;
@@ -857,6 +860,7 @@ sub git_commit_info {
 }
 
 $chk_signoff = 0 if ($file);
+$chk_review = 0 if ($file);
 
 my @rawlines = ();
 my @lines = ();
@@ -2130,6 +2134,7 @@ sub process {
 
 	our $clean = 1;
 	my $signoff = 0;
+	my $review = 0;
 	my $is_patch = 0;
 	my $in_header_lines = $file ? 0 : 1;
 	my $in_commit_log = 0;		#Scanning lines before patch
@@ -2400,6 +2405,12 @@ sub process {
 			$in_commit_log = 0;
 		}
 
+# Check the patch for any review:
+		if ($line =~ /^\s*reviewed-by:/i) {
+			$review++;
+			$in_commit_log = 0;
+		}
+
 # Check if MAINTAINERS is being updated.  If so, there's probably no need to
 # emit the "does MAINTAINERS need updating?" message on file add/move/delete
 		if ($line =~ /^\s*MAINTAINERS\s*\|/) {
@@ -6204,6 +6215,10 @@ sub process {
 		ERROR("MISSING_SIGN_OFF",
 		      "Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)\n");
 	}
+	if ($is_patch && $has_commit_log && $chk_review && $review == 0) {
+		ERROR("MISSING_REVIEW",
+		      "Missing Reviewed-by: line(s)\n");
+	}
 
 	print report_dump();
 	if ($summary && !($clean == 1 && $quiet == 1)) {
-- 
2.10.1