linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

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: <476DC76E7D1DF2438D32BFADF679FC562307BAE6@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:26:30 +0000
From:   "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
To:     "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberts, William C [mailto:william.c.roberts@...el.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 3:49 PM
> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; apw@...onical.com; kernel-
> hardening@...ts.openwall.com
> Subject: [kernel-hardening] RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead
> of %pK usage
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@...ches.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:21 PM
> > To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; apw@...onical.com; kernel-
> > hardening@...ts.openwall.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK
> > usage
> >
> > (Adding back the cc's)
> >
> > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +0000, Roberts, William C wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > No worries.
> > > > No idea why it doesn't work for you.
> > > > Maybe the hand applying was somehow faulty?
> > > >
> > > > The attached is on top of -next so it does have offsets on Linus'
> > > > tree, but it seems to work.
> > > >
> > > > (on -linux)
> > > >
> > > > $ patch -p1 < cp_vsp.diff
> > > > patching file scripts/checkpatch.pl Hunk #1 succeeded at 5634
> > > > (offset -36 lines).
> > > >
> > > > $ cat t_block.c
> > > > {
> > > > 	MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> > > > 		 "%pk",
> > > > 		 foo->boo);
> > > > }
> > > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f t_block.c
> > > > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk'
> > > > #2: FILE: t_block.c:2:
> > > > +	MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> > > > +		 "%pk",
> > > > +		 foo->boo);
> > > >
> > > > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 lines checked
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> > > >       mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
> > > >
> > > > t_block.c has style problems, please review.
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
> > > >       them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
> > >
> > >
> > > Applied. It works fine with your example (see attached
> > > 0001-tblock.patch) but it doesn't provide Output for me with
> > > 0002-drv-hack.patch (attached as well)
> > >
> > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0002-drv-hack.patch
> > > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 lines checked
> > >
> > > 0002-drv-hack.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for
> submission.
> > >
> > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-tblock.patch
> > > WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need
> > updating?
> > > #13:
> > > new file mode 100644
> > >
> > > WARNING: Invalid vsprintf pointer extension '%pk'
> > > #19: FILE: t_block.c:2:
> > > +	MY_DEBUG(drv->foo,
> > > +		"%pk",
> > > +		 foo->boo);
> > >
> > > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 6 lines checked
> > >
> > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> > >       mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
> > >
> > > 0001-tblock.patch has style problems, please review.
> > >
> > > NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
> > >       them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
> >
> > This means _all_ the $stat checks aren't being done on patches that
> > add just a single multi-line statement.
> >
> > Andrew?  Any thoughts on how to enable $stat appropriately for patch
> > contexts with a single multi-line statement?
> 
> I'm for merging your patch as is, and then take up the fact that $stat is not
> working correctly as a separate change, does that seem reasonable?

I haven't seen anything on list about your patch, are we kind of stuck or do you
have some plan on adding your stat patch in the future?