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]

Message-ID: <20191031085129.GA217570@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:51:29 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:18:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 09:35 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > Agreed. I can see the point of not wanting to write an exception into
> > checkpatch for every exception of it's general rules; however, it
> > would be nice if there was a way to maybe have a special comment or
> > something that could turn off a checkpatch error. That way, a
> > checkpatch error/warning always means some action should be taken, and
> > if a rule is being ignored, there is always documentation as to why.
> 
> That couldn't work when a comment which may exist
> in a file is out of scope of the patch context.

Sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean. Can you elaborate?

If it wasn't obvious, I am not proposing that David should make the
changed I described now for this patch. I know what I proposed would not
be an easy thing to implement, especially given the opinions that it is
likely to solicit.

Nevertheless, in the long term, I have seen other projects allow a
comment that would cause style checkers or static analysis tools to
ignore the designated line. Maybe we could implement this as a line
comment that suppresses a checkpatch warning of a certain kind on the
line. So here, we might have something like:

static void list_test_list_for_each_prev(struct kunit *test) /* checkpatch: disable=for-each-format */

We would also probably want to require an explanation either in the
checkpatch comment or the line above, but then you have to worry about
that comment not being included in a patch that only updates the
offending line.

Anyway, it's just an idea. I know that we don't currently assume that
all checkpatch errors/warnings require some action, but it might be cool
if they did.

Cheers