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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a127aeaa-e5ba-2d8d-0894-936e05637508@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:49:51 -0600
From:   shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
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, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for the
 'list' doubly linked list

On 10/30/19 1:23 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 


Thanks all for chiming in. I am taking v6 as is and adding an update
to commit log capture the spurious errors from checkpath.pl for this
specific case.

thanks,
-- Shuah