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]

Message-ID: <26b49cf5-453b-9a81-b045-fdc99c42fcf8@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Sat, 11 Apr 2020 09:12:16 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, 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

Le 10/04/2020 à 21:53, Joe Perches a écrit :
> On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 12:46 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 19:35 +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>> Le 08/04/2020 à 04:14, Joe Perches a écrit :
>>>> This works rather better:
>>>> Perhaps you could test?
>> []
>>> I'm looking at some modification done in the last month that could have
>>> been spotted by the above script.
>>>
>>>       ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/usb/phy/phy-jz4770.c
>>>
>>> correctly spots the 3 first cases, but the 3 last (line 202, 210 and
>>> 217) are missed.
>>> I don't understand why.
>> It has to do with checkpatch's single statement parsing.
>>
>> This case:
>>
>> 	if (foo)
>> 		dev_warn(...);
>>
>> is parsed as a single statement but
>>
>> 	if (foo) {
>> 		dev_warn(...);
>> 	};
>>
>> is parsed as multiple statements so for the
>> second case
>>
>> 		dev_warn(...);
>>
>> is analyzed as a separate statement.
>>
>> The regex match for this missing newline test expects
>> that each printk is a separate statement so the first
>> case doesn't match.
>>
>> Clearly the regex can be improved here.
> So on top of the original patch:
> ---
>   scripts/checkpatch.pl | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index f00a6c8..54eaa7 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -5675,8 +5675,8 @@ sub process {
>   
>   # check for possible missing newlines at the end of common logging functions
>   		if (defined($stat) &&
> -		    $stat =~ /^\+\s*($logFunctions)\s*\((?:\s*$FuncArg\s*,\s*){0,3}\s*$String/ &&
> -		    $1 !~ /_cont$/ && $1 =~ /^(?:pr|dev|netdev|netif|wiphy)_/) {
> +		    $stat =~ /^\+\s*(?:if\s*$balanced_parens\s*)?($logFunctions)\s*\((?:\s*$FuncArg\s*,\s*){0,3}\s*$String/ &&
> +		    $2 !~ /_cont$/ && $2 =~ /^(?:pr|dev|netdev|netif|wiphy)_/) {
>   			my $cnt = statement_rawlines($stat);
>   			my $extracted_string = "";
>   			for (my $i = 0; $i < $cnt; $i++) {

Hi,

	./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/soc/kendryte/k210-sysctl.c

is missing line 189, even if it looks like a construction correctly spotted in some other files:
	if (foo) {
		dev_err(...);
		...
	};

CJ