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: <20180107081215.29a31ea5@vento.lan>
Date:   Sun, 7 Jan 2018 08:12:15 -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 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:41:41 +0100
Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com> escreveu:

> On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 16:08 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > 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 $@  
> 
> I suppose you here refer to this:
> https://blogs.oracle.com/linuxkernel/smatch-static-analysis-tool-overview,-by-dan-carpenter
> 
> Good idea! I'll have a look at how that plays with this.

Yes.

> 
> > 	/devel/sparse/sparse $@
> > 
> > So, I'm not sure why we need something else.   
> 
> The core functionality is the selective suppression logic and output unification
> which makes checking with automated build tools more flexible and 
> applicable right away (not when every warning from every checker is fixed...)

If the idea is to use it only/mostly with automated build tools, then
the better would be to call it only when explicitly requested, e. g.
something like C=3, in order to avoid breaking the usecase where one
would run its own script.

On my case, I use C=1 CHECK=compile_checks as part as my usual patch
handling. For every patch I apply on media, I call make again, to be
sure that no warning/building errors were added, not only with gcc
but also with smatch and sparse. 

> 
> > 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!  
> 
> Sure, if that was the case I would be the first to agree :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Knut
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Mauro  



Thanks,
Mauro