linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] kbuild: Add P= command line flag to run checkpatch

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: <1511212212.4822.66.camel@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:10:12 +0100
From:   Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
To:     Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Jim Davis <jim.epost@...il.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] kbuild: Add P= command line flag to run checkpatch

On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 21:08 +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:48:35PM -0700, Jim Davis wrote:
> > 
> > I'd be nice if people could just specify CHECK and CHECKFLAGS to run
> > their favorite checker, but currently CHECKFLAGS seems hardwired for
> > running sparse.  So something liike
> > 
> > make C=1 CHECK="scripts/checkpatch.pl" CHECKFLAGS="--quiet --file"
> > 
> > fails when checkpatch is passed lots of arguments like -D__linux__
> > -Dlinux -D__STDC__ .  A little shell wrapper to grab the last argument
> > in that long list is a workaround, but perhaps CHECKFLAGS should be
> > made less sparse-specific?
> 
> It should be noted though that CHECKFLAGS contains very very few
> sparse specific things. It's mainly flags for the compiler
> coming from  KBUILD_CFLAGS (which of course, sparse needs to
> do its job properly).

Yes, and we would want some arguments passed to checkpatch by default as well.

A wrapper script (which by the way was what I started this with..)
could of course solve this and other issues such as the ability 
to run multiple checkers, but I am not convinced that that would be 
less ugly?

Thanks,
Knut

> 
> -- Luc Van Oostenryck