linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't warn on every struct without const

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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:27:42 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't warn on every struct without
 const_structs file

On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 16:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 07:01 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 15:03 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
> > > 
> > > The script says that it won't warn:
> > > "No structs that should be const will be found [...]"
> > > 
> > > but then that doesn't work and it warns on every single struct
> > > instead, since the regular expression ends up empty. Fix that
> > > by checking that it's not empty first.
> > 
> > nak.
> > 
> > How does const_structs end up empty for you?
> 
> I copied checkpatch elsewhere and ran it.

Why do you want to copy checkpatch "someplace else"?
Instead of copy, I think you should soft link it.

> Regardless, the current code is utterly stupid - it prints a warning
> that it won't flag any structs, and then proceeds to flag all structs.
> 
> If you must, send a patch to abort() [whatever the perl equivalent is]
> when the file can't be found, but as it is, the code is just idiotic.

Maybe so.

As is, your patch description is incomplete because
it doesn't mention your use case.