linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: allow URL >80 chars

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:56:07 +0100
From:   Andreas Brauchli <a.brauchli@...mentarea.net>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: allow URL >80 chars

On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 22:02 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-20 at 13:40 +0100, Andreas Brauchli wrote:
> > Allow URL to exceed the 80 char limit for improved interaction in
> > adaption to ongoing but undocumented practice.
> > 
> > $ git grep -E '://\S{77}.*' -- '*.[ch]'
> > 
> > The patch checks that the URL is indeed on its own line in that it
> > allows a maximal prefix of 3 characters to account for a URL after
> > a
> > comment (e.g. '// https://...')
> 
> I think this part is not necessary or that useful.
If it's dropped the line might not be minimal anymore. I.e. there may
be content on the same line that could easily be wrapped.

> For instance, this style
> 
> 	/* some long url */
> 
> is pretty common.
I can change the heuristics to not accept word characters outside of
the URL match. That would allow whitespace, quotes, braces and comment
characters, and thus also the example above.

> > As per RFC3986 [1], the URL format allows for alphanum, +, - and .
> > characters in the scheme before the separator :// as long as it
> > starts
> > with a letter (e.g. https, git, f.-+).
> 
> That seems right, thanks.
> 
> > Recognition of URIs without more context information is prone to
> > false
> > positives and thus currently left out of the heuristics.
> 
> OK.

Thanks for the reviews,
Andreas