linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for the 'list' doubly linked list

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 12:23:45 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for
 the 'list' doubly linked list

On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 22:12 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:27:12AM -0600, shuah wrote:
> > > It's better to ignore checkpatch and other scripts when they are wrong.
> > > (unless the warning message inspires you to make the code more readable
> > > for humans).
> > > 
> > 
> > It gets confusing when to ignore and when not to. It takes work to
> > figure out and it is subjective.
> > 
> 
> In this case, it's not subjective because checkpatch is clearly not
> working as intended.

checkpatch _is_ working as intended.
It was never intended to be perfect.

checkpatch _always_ depended on a reviewer deciding
whether its output was appropriate.

> I don't feel like "checkpatch clean" is a useful criteria for applying
> patches.

Nor do I.

> The other things about warnings is that I always encourage people to
> just ignore old warnings.  If you're running Smatch and you see a
> warning in ancient code that means I saw it five years ago and didn't
> fix it so it's a false positive.  Old warnings are always 100% false
> positives.

That'd be not absolute either because it depended on your
historical judgment as to whether an old warning was in fact
a defect or not.

People make mistakes.
Regex based scripts are by design stupid and untrustworthy.

Mistakes will be made.
Just fix the actual defects in code as soon as possible.