linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Allow space leading blank lines in email headers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170323155532.GA19910@fury>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:55:32 -0700
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        John 'Warthog9' Hawley <warthog9@...lescrag.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Allow space leading blank lines in email
 headers

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:28:40PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 23:20 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > I do have an open question regarding how we're going about testing for the end
> > of the header lines. Since we're not just testing for an empty line to separate
> > headers and body, there is clearly more going on here - but I'm not sure what it
> > is ... so I can't be sure this doesn't have an unintended consequence.
> > 
> > > +		      $rawline =~ /^(?:commit\b|from\b|[\w-]+:)/i)) {
> > 
> > This appears to be an unrelated change, introducing the non-capturing-group
> > (?:) and dropping the superfluous .*$ postfix. Did I get that right?
> 
> Exactly right.
> 
> The capturing of the initial bit of the match and
> testing of the rest of the line is simply unnecessary.
> 
> I frequently make localized changes like that when I
> notice them.  It's not a problem.

Thanks Joe. Your call, when I see unrelated changes in patches to me I ask that
they be broken out or at least mentioned in the commit log - which is why I
asked, in case it slipped in unintentionally.

The fix addresses my concern in what appears to be the simplest possible way,
and generally for long header fields, with minimal change.

In addition to my tested-by, feel free to include my review tag:

Reviewed-by: Darren Hart (VMware) <dvhart@...are.com>

Thanks to both you and John for the time on this.

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center