linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix uninitialized var when run with --no-tree

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: <20161029023609.GA48401@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:36:09 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix uninitialized var when run with --no-tree

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 07:26:31PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
> 
> If checkpatch.pl gets copied out of the tree, --no-tree shouldn't start
> complaining:
> 
>   Use of uninitialized value $root in concatenation (.) or string at
>   /path/to/checkpatch.pl line 764.
> 
> Let's just give the safe answer instead -- don't warn about "obsolete"
> files.
> 
> Fixes: 85b0ee18bbf8 ("checkpatch: see if modified files are marked obsolete in MAINTAINERS")
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
> ---
> This is a 4.9-rc1 regression
> 
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index a8368d1c4348..c8cd643dbc6f 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -761,6 +761,8 @@ sub seed_camelcase_file {
>  sub is_maintained_obsolete {
>  	my ($filename) = @_;
>  
> +	return 0 if (!$tree);

Actually, I'm torn on this. It looks really odd to check for !$tree
here, but it's the only supported case where $root shouldn't be defined.
Maybe (!defined $root) is a better test? (Sorry, I did a double-take on
this after I sent it.)

Both would be equally correct, but I suppose the latter would be
clearer. I'll send v2.

Brian

> +
>  	return 0 if (!(-e "$root/scripts/get_maintainer.pl"));
>  
>  	my $status = `perl $root/scripts/get_maintainer.pl --status --nom --nol --nogit --nogit-fallback -f $filename 2>&1`;
> -- 
> 2.8.0.rc3.226.g39d4020
>