linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging message

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:   Thu, 09 Apr 2020 14:40:40 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        apw@...onical.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing \n at the end of logging
 message

On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 20:52 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> In fact, I don't really see the need to modify many files just for some 
> kind of style.
> (same reason why I think that checkpatch is a better place for a test 
> than submitting hundreds of patches based on coccinelle)
> 
> From your point of view, does auditing and fixing these missing \n make 
> sense?

Not all that much no.  Even the existing conversions
of formats missing newlines isn't all that important.

It's only a consideration for relatively unmaintained
old drivers and arches that still use printk without a
KERN_<LEVEL> where a message might either be interleaved
with a pr_<level> style message without a terminating
newline or by old style messages that should actually
instead be coalesced because the printks don't have
any KERN_<LEVEL>.

> Wouldn't it just be a lot of noise for a small benefit?

Much of the noise has already been filtered out by patches
and the ambient noise is already at a relatively low
level.

Quiet is good though and I think the noise reduction
is useful and quite painless.