linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1,2} to support multiple checkers

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: <20180105160816.2e940aac@vento.lan>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:08:16 -0200
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
To:     Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
        Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>,
        Åsmund Østvold 
        <asmund.ostvold@...cle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
        cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] runchecks: Generalize make C={1,2} to support
 multiple checkers

Em Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:15:31 +0100
Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com> escreveu:

> > I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say
> > nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports
> > arbitrary checkers.   
> 
> The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638
> 
> is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion 
> is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended 
> to be a checkpatch only solution.
> 
> > How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be
> > a complete replacement? Or what?  
> 
> It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK.
> 
> > 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the
> > help text.  
> 
> I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I split the 
> arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility.
> 
> It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for 
> anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today

I do. Here, I use:

$ make ARCH=i386  CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y C=1 W=1 CHECK='compile_checks' M=drivers/media

Where "compile_checks" is actually a small script that calls both
smatch and sparse:

	#!/bin/bash
	/devel/smatch/smatch -p=kernel $@
	/devel/sparse/sparse $@

So, I'm not sure why we need something else. That said, I didn't look
on its code, but looking on its diffstat:

 Makefile                               |  23 +-
 scripts/Makefile.build                 |   4 +-
 scripts/runchecks                      | 734 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 scripts/runchecks.cfg                  |  63 ++-
 scripts/runchecks_help.txt             |  43 ++-

Using a 734 lines python program just to do an exec on an external checker
seems too much!

Thanks,
Mauro