linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 3/6] objtool: arm64: Adapt the stack frame checks and the section analysis for the arm architecture

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

Message-ID: <bc258aae-1f2f-0674-2eeb-43e4cff6bb29@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:27:48 +0100
From:   Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Raphael Gault <raphael.gault@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/6] objtool: arm64: Adapt the stack frame checks and the
 section analysis for the arm architecture



On 09/04/2019 17:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> I'm just doing my initial read-through,.. however
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:52:40PM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote:
>>> +		if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR)
>>> +			&& (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG))
>>>  			continue;
>>
>> could you please not format code like that. Operators go at the end of
>> the line, and continuation should match the indentation of the opening
>> paren. So the above would look like:
>>
>>> +		if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR) &&
>>> +		    (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG))
>>>  			continue;
>>
>> You appear to be doing that quit consistently, and it is against style.
> 
> Raphael, as a heads-up, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl can catch issues like
> this. You can run it over a list of patches, so for a patch series you
> can run:
> 
>  $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl *.patch
> 
> ... and hopefully most of the output will be reasonable.
> 

For this particular case, checkpatch only warns about it if you pass it
"--strict" option. So in general it might be useful to include this
option at least for the first pass at including large pieces of code.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Thierry