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: <8e8654d4-f81e-be04-7a43-68ff98cdd293@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:50:07 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        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 30/10/2019 20.15, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 21:46 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> Hm...  I imagined the checkpatch code a little different in my head but
>> this would also work to make it stricter.  I doubt it miss very many
>> real life style problems.
> 
> Well, doubts vs reality...
> 
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> []
>> @@ -3607,7 +3607,7 @@ sub process {
>>  
>>  # if/while/etc brace do not go on next line, unless defining a do while loop,
>>  # or if that brace on the next line is for something else
>> -		if ($line =~ /(.*)\b((?:if|while|for|switch|(?:[a-z_]+|)for_each[a-z_]+)\s*\(|do\b|else\b)/ && $line !~ /^.\s*\#/) {
>> +		if ($line =~ /(.*)\b((?:if|while|for|switch|(?:list|hlist)_for_each[a-z_]+)\s*\(|do\b|else\b)/ && $line !~ /^.\s*\#/) {
>>  			my $pre_ctx = "$1$2";
>>  
>>  			my ($level, @ctx) = ctx_statement_level($linenr, $realcnt, 0);
> 
> So - nak

How about changing the check so it only matches the
if/while/for/*for_each*/ thing when it's the first thing on a line _and_
has non-trivial whitespace in front. Then a function declaration as

static void test_for_each()
{

would not fire, nor would it if it were written in the other common style

static void
test_for_each()
{

?

Maybe there'd still be a problem at the call-sites

  test_for_each();
  this_is_not_indented;

but the ending semi-colon should actually make it appear as a loop with
an empty body (though that in itself might fire a different warning,
dunno if checkpatch has that kind of warnings). But in any case the
above should remove _some_ false positives.

Rasmus